Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suresh B. Shetty, filed a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive detention of his brother, Vishwanath Shetty. The detention order was passed on 03.05.2018 by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (the Act). The petitioner contended that the detaining authority did not consider the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies, such as denial of bail or cancellation of bail, before ordering preventive detention. The court examined the detention order and found that while the authority had recorded subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and would continue his prejudicial activities, there was no consideration of whether less restrictive measures under the ordinary law would be sufficient. The court relied on the principle that preventive detention is a drastic measure and the detaining authority must consider alternatives. The court held that the failure to consider less drastic remedies vitiates the detention order. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order dated 03.05.2018 and the subsequent confirmation order dated 08.06.2018, and directed the release of the detenu forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Consideration of Less Drastic Remedies - Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - The detaining authority must consider whether less drastic remedies like denial of bail or cancellation of bail would be sufficient to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. Failure to do so vitiates the detention order. (Paras 3-5) B) Constitutional Law - Habeas Corpus - Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court can quash a detention order if the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the availability of less restrictive measures. The court held that the detention order was unsustainable as the authority did not consider the possibility of resorting to ordinary law remedies. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 is valid when the detaining authority failed to consider the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies such as denial of bail or cancellation of bail.
Final Decision
The court quashed the detention order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District, and the confirmation order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the State Government. The court directed the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Bellary, to release the detenu Vishwanath Shetty forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- subjective satisfaction
- less drastic remedy
- consideration of alternatives
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act
- 1985
