Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Shylamma, mother of the detenu Abhishek @ Abhi @ Sutta, filed a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive detention order dated 1.3.2016 passed by the third respondent (Additional District Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Mysuru City) under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985. The detention order was approved by the second respondent on 5.3.2016 and confirmed on 13.4.2016. The primary ground of challenge was that the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon were served on the detenu in English, whereas the detenu knew only Kannada. The detenu was not provided with translated copies in Kannada, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court, relying on the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Law and Order) which admitted that the detenu was served with grounds in English and that he knew only Kannada, held that the failure to communicate the grounds in a language known to the detenu vitiated the detention order. The court quashed the detention order and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Effective Representation - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Communication of Grounds in Known Language - The detenu was served grounds of detention in English, but he knew only Kannada. The court held that failure to communicate grounds in a language understood by the detenu vitiates the detention order as it prevents him from making an effective representation. (Paras 4-6) B) Preventive Detention - Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - Grounds of Detention - The detention order under the Act was quashed because the detenu was not provided with translated copies of documents relied upon, which were in English, thereby violating his constitutional right. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order is vitiated for non-communication of grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu, thereby infringing his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 1.3.2016, the approval order dated 5.3.2016, and the confirmation order dated 13.4.2016, and directed the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Right to make effective representation
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- Communication of grounds in language known to detenu
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers
- Drug-Offenders
- Gamblers
- Goondas
- Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act
- 1985
