Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dil Shad, wife of Huseen Kabeer, filed a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District (Respondent No.2) under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1985). The detention order was confirmed by the State of Karnataka (Respondent No.1) on 17.07.2025. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders and release of the detenue. The brief facts are that the detenue was detained under the said Act. The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were served on the detenue in Kannada and English, but the detenue only understood Hindi. The detenue was not provided with the grounds in Hindi, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be communicated the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue and to make a representation against the order. The respondents argued that the detenue was aware of the contents and that the procedure was followed. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 8 of the Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It held that the communication of grounds in a language not known to the detenue is no communication at all and defeats the right to make an effective representation. The court found that the detenue was a Hindi-speaking person and the grounds were not translated into Hindi. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the detenue forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Communication of Grounds - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Section 8 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - The detenue, a Hindi-speaking person, was served grounds of detention in Kannada and English, which he did not understand. The court held that failure to communicate grounds in a language known to the detenue vitiates the detention order as it deprives the detenue of the right to make an effective representation. The court quashed the detention order and directed release of the detenue. (Paras 1-10) B) Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention - Procedural Safeguards - The court reiterated that preventive detention laws must be strictly construed and procedural safeguards are mandatory. Non-compliance with the requirement of communicating grounds in a language understood by the detenue renders the detention illegal. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 is valid when the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenue in a language known to him, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 10.07.2025 and the confirmation order dated 17.07.2025 are quashed. The respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- procedural safeguards
- communication of grounds in known language
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers
- Drug Offenders
- Gamblers
- Goondas
- Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act
- 1985
- habeas corpus
- right to make representation
