Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Shrenika, wife of the detenue Sri. Huchappa @ Dhanaraj Kalebag, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, challenging the preventive detention order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Vijaypur (2nd respondent) dated 10.04.2023 in Case No. MAG/CR-24/2021-22, and the confirmation order by the State Government (1st respondent) dated 19.04.2023 bearing No. HD 211 SST 2023. The detention was under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985. The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were served on the detenue in English and Kannada, but the detenue knew only Kannada and not English. The detaining authority did not ensure that the detenue understood the grounds, thereby violating his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation. The respondents argued that the grounds were served in Kannada, which the detenue knew, and that the detenue had not made any representation. The court examined the records and found that the grounds were served in both English and Kannada, but the detenue's statement showed he knew only Kannada. The court held that the right to be communicated the grounds in a language known to the detenue is a fundamental right and a procedural safeguard. The detaining authority must ensure that the detenue understands the grounds to make an effective representation. Since the grounds were partly in English, which the detenue did not know, the detention order was vitiated. The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order and the confirmation order, and directed the release of the detenue forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Representation - Communication of Grounds - Article 22(5) of 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 was served with grounds of detention in English and Kannada, but he knew only Kannada and not English - The court held that mere service of grounds in a language known to the detenue is not sufficient; the detaining authority must ensure that the detenue understands the grounds to make an effective representation - Failure to do so vitiates the detention order - Held that the detention order is illegal and liable to be quashed (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order and its grounds were communicated to the detenue in a language known to him, thereby enabling him to make an effective representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent and the confirmation order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the 1st respondent, and directed the respondents to release the detenue forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Right to make representation
- Communication of grounds in language known to detenue
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- Section 8 of Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act
- 1985
- Fundamental right
- Procedural safeguard
