Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Surekha Deepak Shintre, wife of the detenu Deepak Shivaji Shintre, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus. She challenged the detention order dated 04.02.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Belagavi, under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of 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 petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu in a language he understood, i.e., Marathi, thereby violating his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation. The court examined the detention order and the grounds supplied. It noted that the grounds were in English and Kannada, but the detenu was a Marathi-speaking person. The court held that the failure to communicate the grounds in a language understood by the detenu amounted to a serious infraction of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5). The court also observed that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the language aspect, rendering the detention order invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Representation - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Communication of Grounds in Language Understood by Detenu - The detaining authority failed to communicate the grounds of detention in Marathi, the language understood by the detenu, thereby depriving him of the right to make an effective representation. Held that the detention order is vitiated for non-application of mind and violation of constitutional safeguards (Paras 1-5).
B) Preventive Detention - Non-Application of Mind - Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - Section 3(1) & 3(2) - The detaining authority did not consider the detenu's knowledge of language while communicating grounds. Held that the order suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order dated 04.02.2016 passed under Section 3(1) & 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 is valid when the grounds of detention were not communicated in a language understood by the detenu, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The detention order dated 04.02.2016 bearing No.DC/POL/G-ACT/CR/03/2015-2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Belagavi, is quashed. The respondents are directed to set the detenu Deepak Shivaji Shintre at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- Right to make representation
- Communication of grounds in language understood by detenu
- Non-application of mind by detaining authority
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers
- Drug Offenders
- Gamblers
- Goondas
- Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act
- 1985 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1985)
- Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (04) 45
W.P. (H.C.) No.100005/2016
Sri M. B. Gundawade (for petitioner), Sri C.S. Patil (Government Advocate for respondents)
Smt. Surekha Deepak Shintre
State of Karnataka, Superintendent of Police Belagavi, Deputy Superintendent of Police Gokak Sub-Division, Circle Police Inspector Sankeshwar Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Habeas corpus petition challenging preventive detention order
Remedy Sought
Writ of habeas corpus to produce detenu and set him at liberty by quashing detention order
Filing Reason
Detention order passed under Section 3(1) & 3(2) of Karnataka Act 12 of 1985 without communicating grounds in language understood by detenu
Issues
Whether the detention order is valid when grounds were not communicated in a language understood by the detenu, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were in English and Kannada, but the detenu understands only Marathi, thus he could not make an effective representation.
Respondents did not contest the violation of Article 22(5) and conceded that the grounds were not in Marathi.
Ratio Decidendi
The right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make a representation against a detention order is a fundamental right. For this right to be meaningful, the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu in a language he understands. Failure to do so vitiates the detention order for non-application of mind and violation of constitutional safeguards.
Judgment Excerpts
In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Deepak Shivaji Shintre (aged 44 years), is challenging the following three orders of detention: (i) order dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure-A) passed by the Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Belagavi, in exercise of the power under Section 3(1) & 3(2) of 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 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him, i.e., Marathi, thereby violating his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation.
The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, fairly submitted that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu in Marathi.
In view of the above, the detention order is vitiated for non-application of mind and violation of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The detention order dated 04.02.2016 bearing No.DC/POL/G-ACT/CR/03/2015-2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Belagavi, is quashed. The respondents are directed to set the detenu Deepak Shivaji Shintre at liberty forthwith.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging the detention order dated 04.02.2016. The court heard the matter on 22.04.2016 and allowed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 22(5), Article 226, Article 227
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985: Section 3(1), Section 3(2)
