Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yashoda, wife of Keshava Poojary @ Choni, filed a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive detention order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Police Commissioner, Mangalore City, under Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (the Act). The detenu was also served with confirmation orders dated 06.11.2014, 08.12.2014, and 28.01.2015. The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were served in English and Kannada, but the detenu knew only Tulu and Kannada. Since the grounds were not communicated in a language known to the detenu, his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation was violated. The respondents argued that the grounds were served in Kannada, which the detenu understood. The court examined the record and found that the grounds were indeed served in English and Kannada. However, the court noted that the detenu's statement before the Advisory Board indicated that he did not understand the grounds properly. The court held that the detaining authority must ensure that the grounds are communicated in a language known to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. The failure to do so vitiates the detention order. The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the respondents to release the detenu forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Communication of Grounds - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 - The detenu was served with grounds of detention in English and Kannada, but the detenu knew only Tulu and Kannada. The court held that mere service of grounds in a language which the detenu may not fully comprehend is not sufficient; the detaining authority must ensure that the grounds are communicated in a language known to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. The failure to do so vitiates the detention order. (Paras 1-5) B) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Representation - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - The court held that the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) is a fundamental right, and the detaining authority must provide all material and grounds in a language understood by the detenu. Non-compliance renders the detention illegal. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of preventive detention passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 is vitiated for non-communication of grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 29.10.2014 and the confirmation orders, and directed the respondents to release the detenu forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Right to communicate grounds
- Article 22(5) Constitution of India
- Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers
- Drug Offenders
- Gamblers
- Goondas
- Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act
- 1985
- Detenu's right to make representation
- Grounds in language known to detenu
