Bounden Duty Of Authority To Supply Details Of Detention & Translated Case Materials To Detenu: Karnataka HC Quashes Order Under Preventive Detention Act

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of detention passed by the authorities against a detenu under the Karnataka Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, [Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers And Video Or Audio Pirates] Act, 1985 ("Goonda Act/Preventive Detention Act").

One of the grounds for setting aside the order was the failure of authority to provide copies of documents relied on by it while passing the impugned order in a language known to the detenu.

A division bench of Justice K Somashekhar and Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the habeas corpus petition to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty by quashing the impugned detention order.

The bench said “As the student of an Arabic school and who has studied the first language as Arabic or Urdu, cannot possibly be considered as well-educated in the languages other than 1st language as he has studied only for three years in the said school. Hence, we are constrained to state that authorities have failed to comply with the mandates of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India in its letter and spirit.”

The petitioner contended that respondents are mandated to furnish legible copies of the documents to the detenu, explaining the causes for his detention along with the documents that are relied upon to come to such conclusion, thereby enabling him to submit the representation as provided by Section 8 of the Goonda Act.

However, it was argued that the Authorities failed to comply with the provisions of Section 8, which took away the earliest possible opportunity for the detenu to file a representation against the order of detention.

It was argued that the documents supplied to the detenu were in English and Kannada, and the detenu being a student of Urdu medium school who had studied till 2nd Standard, was not familiar with either language.

Petitioners argued that supplying the documents for him in Kannada and English languages was not only in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution but also in violation of Section 8 of the Goonda Act, thereby nulifying his right to file a representation against the order of Detention.

The state opposed the plea saying the impugned detention order was passed in the interest of the general public as the offender was a thief and also a habitual offender who was involved in several crimes since 2013 and a total number of 15 crimes had been reported against him.

It was argued that it was in this background, that action had been taken against the detenu.

Further, it was contended that the respondent had obtained the certificate from the university in which the detenu completed his initial schooling and the said certificate clearly emphasised that though he has studied in Urdu School, he was well-versed in Arabic, Urdu, English and Kannada Languages.

“The documents that are claimed to be illegible are not much of any relevance and their absence would not have harmed the detenu to submit any representation to competent authority in time,” it was said.

The Bench noted that under Section 8 of the Act, a duty is bestowed upon the respondents to furnish materials which were relied upon by them, to enable the detenu to submit an effective representation to the competent authority against the order of detention passed by the State.

Then the court held, “certain pages in the compilation are not legible and we are afraid to say that these documents would have been proven vital in giving representation as these illegible copies pertain to the records of crime committed by the detenu maintained by the Police Authorities and also the evidences examined by the Police Authorities in pursuance of investigation into crimes. Hence, we hold the above contention in favour of the petitioner.”

Rejecting the contention of the respondent that the detenu knew how to read and write English and Kannada language the court said “as the student of an Arabic school and who has studied the first language as Arabic or Urdu, cannot possibly be considered as well-educated in the languages other than 1st language as he has studied only for three years in the said school.”

However, it was held that the detaining authority was under a bounden duty to provide the details of detention along with a translated copy (i.e., documents translated in the language known to the detenu), to the detenu within 21 days of the detention order being passed as compliance to Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act.

Court further noted that the detention order passed was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of passing it, but only after a gap of 35 days.

It finally held: On examination of the case on hand, if viewed with the anomalies in the materials provided, it is glaring on the face of records that the Advisory Board did not have sufficient time to examine the records and hence, thereby the order of detention cannot be considered as one that is passed by the mandates of Goonda Act.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and directed the detenu to be released forthwith.

Appearance: Advocate Nanjunda Gowda M R for Petitioner.

HCGP Anoop Kumar for Respondent.

Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 470

Case Title: Mohammad Shafiulla AND The D. G. AND I.G.P. Of Police & Others

Case No: WPHC NO.75 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order