A preventive detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 must specify the exact category of offender (e.g., goonda) and must demonstrate application of mind by considering all relevant facts, including acquittals.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order of detention passed by the Respondent No.2/the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District, Udupi on 10.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Detention Order’) and a Confirmation Order passed by Respondent No.1/the State of Karnataka on

17.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Confirmation Order”). A prayer has also been made directing the release of the Detenue.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a Detention Order was passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drugs Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offences and Slum-Grabbers Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1985 Act’) by the Respondent No.2/Magistrate on 10.07.2025, after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the Detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The Detention Order was approved by the respondent No.1/State, who issued a confirmation order on 17.07.2025. The petition has been filed by the wife of the Detenue, since the Detenue is in custody.

2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the Detention Order is completely vague and does not set out any specific provision under which the Detention Order has been passed in terms of the 1985 Act. It merely references Section 3(1) of the 1985 Act without setting out the type of offence under Section 2 of the 1985 Act.

2.2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Detention Order must not only be clear and specific and refer to the provisions of the 1985 Act that attracted, and it must also set out the satisfaction that the Retaining Authority has obtained. However, both are missing from the Detention Order.

2.3 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the grounds of detention clearly show that of the 17 cases that have been stated to be registered against the Detenue, however, the petitioner was acquitted in most of those cases, and was only convicted in one case. The Detention Order however does not reference that fact at all. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of a Co-Ordinate Bench passed in Prema vs. State of Karnataka &

Others, W.P.(HC) No.80/2014, dtd.07.07.2014, in this behalf.

2.4 Lastly, it is contended that no opportunity was given to the detenu for making a representation against the

Detention Order and that this lapse would by itself vitiate the Detention Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar, Ishwardas Patel vs. Union Of India And Others , (1995) 4 SCC 51 to submit that where the Detaining Authority fails to inform the Detenue that he has a right to make a representation, such is a denial of his Constitutional Right and the order of detention is to be satisfied on this ground.

3. The learned HCGP on the other hand submits that the Detention Order sets out that the detention has been sought for under the provisions of Section 3 of the 1985 Act and thus the requirements of the provision are satisfied. He submits that the Detention Order was passed strictly in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the 1985 Act considering the gravity of the criminal activities of the detenu and after recording the subjective satisfaction.

3.1 Learned HCGP further submits that the detenu was informed of his right to be heard in person before the Advisory Board, and to make a representation as is mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Thus, the contention