Allowed

Tarannum v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2023WPHC/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable against a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. It quashed the detention and approval orders because the State Government failed to independently and expediently consider the detenue's representation while awaiting the Advisory Board's report, violating Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 19.12.2022, 29.12.2022, and 20.01.2023 were quashed. The detenue is set at liberty forthwith.

Tarannum Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶9

W.P.H.C. NO.14 OF 2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

TARANNUM W/O WASEEM AKRAM AGED 22 YEARS R/AT. RAZAQ MOHALLA SHABBIR NAGAR HUNASURU TOWN MYSURU-571105.

¶14

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGLAURU-560 001.

¶18

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND ] DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OFFICE AT KRISHNARAJA BLVD RD K.G.KOPPAL, KAJJIHUNDI MYSURU-570001.

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE AT HYDER ALI ROAD KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE JALAPURI, MYSURU-570019.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶21

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HUNSUR SUB DIVISION MUTHUMARIYAMMAN KOVIL HUNSUR, MYSORE DIST-571105.

¶22

INSPECTOR OF POLICE HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT-571105.

¶23

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISONS CENTRAL JAIL, HINDAGAL BELAGAVI-571109.

¶24

RES. 1 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP TO VIDHAN SAUDA BANGALORE-560001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II A/W SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6)

¶27

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION DATED 19.12.2022 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.MYSDC/MAG1/MLO/62/2022 E-172833 AND MYSDC/MAG1/MLO/62/2022 E- 215189, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY QUASHING THE APPROVAL ORDER DATED 29.12.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN HD724SST2022. WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C & ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioner who is the wife of the detenue viz., Wasim alias Wasim Akram alias Welding Wasim (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenue' for short) has assailed the validity of the order of detention dated 19.12.2022 under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers and also Video and Audio Pirates Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner also seeks quashment of order dated 29.12.2022, by which order of detention has been affirmed by the State Government. The petitioner also seeks quashment of order of confirmation dated 21.01.2013 passed by the State Government and

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶33

seeks a writ of habeas corpus to release the detenue forthwith.

¶34

Facts leading to filing of this petition

¶35

briefly stated are that an order of detention was passed against the detenue on 19.12.2022 under the Act on the ground that the detenue started criminal activities since, 2014 in Hunsur Town, Mysore District. The allegation against the detenue is that he is indulged in several cases pertaining to physical assault, criminal intimidation, riots, kidnapping offences against women and destruction of public properties etc. In pursuance of order of detention, the detenue was arrested on 19.12.2022. On account of the criminal activities of the detenue, a rowdy sheet was opened against him at Hunsur Police Station on 07.03.2015. It is averred that

¶36

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶37

since, 2015 till 2021, 10 criminal cases were registered against the detenue. It is the case of the respondents that activities of the detenue caused disturbance to public order and to control his activities and to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order, an order of detention was passed.

¶38

The order of detention was forwarded to

¶39

the State Government for approval, which accorded its approval on 29.12.2022. Thereafter, an order of corrigendum dated 29.12.2022 was issued. The detenue submitted a representation on 02.01.2023 to respondents and the advisory board. Thereafter, another representation was submitted on 05.01.2023 to the respondents and the advisory board. The representation of the detenue was

¶40

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶41

forwarded to the advisory board on 05.01.2023. The recommendation of the advisory board dated 11.01.2013 was received on 20.01.2013 and thereafter an order of confirmation dated 21.01.2023 has been passed. The representation submitted by the detenue was decided by an order dated 03.02.2023 and the same was rejected. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since, the representation submitted on behalf of the detenue was received before the matter was referred to the advisory board, therefore, the respondents ought to have decided the representation before referring the matter to the advisory board. In support of aforesaid submission,

¶43

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶44

reliance has been placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'ANKIT ASHOK JALAN VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2020) 16 SCC 127 and order dated 22.11.2022 passed by a division bench of this court in WPHC No.74/2022.

¶45

On the other hand, Learned counsel for

¶46

the respondents while placing reliance on an order dated 19.04.2023 passed by division bench of this court at Dharwad, in WPHC No.100008/2023 has submitted that writ of habeas corpus in a case where the detenue is under preventive detention is not maintainable and the petitioner should seek the writ of certiorari. On merits, it is contended that on receipt of the representation, the same was forwarded to the advisory board on 05.01.2023 and the representation of the detenue has been

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶48

considered by the advisory board. It is urged that after receipt of the report of the advisory board, on 20.01.2023, the representation submitted by the detenue has been decided on 03.02.2023 and there is no such delay in deciding the representation, which would vitiate the order of detention. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'ANKIT ASHOK JALAN VS.

¶49

UNION OF INDIA', (2020) 16 SCC 127, 'K.M.ABDULLA KUNNI VS. UNION OF INDIA', and 'ANURADHA VS. JOINT SECRETARY AND OTHERS', (2005) 5 SCC 142.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶51

submitted that order dated 19.04.2013 passed by a division bench of this court in WPHC No.100008/2023 is per incuriam. It is further

¶52

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶53

submitted that in 'HOME SECRETARY (PRISON) AND OTHERS VS. H.NILOFER NISHA', (2020) 14 SCC 161 and in 'KANU SANYAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DARJEELING AND OTHERS', (1973) 2 SCC 674 , it has not been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision has been rendered in ignorance of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS', (2011) 10 SCC 781 and 'T.P.MOHINUDDIN KOYA VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS', (2004) 8 SCC 228 and a full bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in 'G.ARCHANA AND

¶54

10 -

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶56

OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶57

AND OTHERS', (2015) CRI L.J. 3946.

¶58

We have considered the rival submissions

¶59

made on both sides and have perused the record.

¶60

Before proceeding further, we may advert to the preliminary objection raised by learned Special Public Prosecutor - II with regard to maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in DEEPAK BAJAJ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', AIR 2009 SC 628,

¶61

while dealing with the scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has held as under:

¶62

28 . Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a writ of habeas corpus lies only when there is illegal detention, and in the present

¶63

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶64

case since the petitioner has not yet been arrested, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued. We regret we cannot agree, and that for two reasons. Firstly, Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution permit the High Court and the Supreme Court to not only issue the writs which were traditionally issued by British Courts but these Articles give much wider powers to this Court and the High Court. This is because Article 32 and Article 226 state that the Supreme Court and High Court can issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, etc. and they can also issue orders and directions apart from issuing writs. The words `in the nature of' imply that the powers of this Court or the High Court are not subject to the traditional restrictions on the powers of the British Courts to issue writs.

¶65

12 -

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶67

Thus the powers of this Court and the High Court are much wider than those of the British Courts vide Dwarka Nath vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 81 (vide para 4), Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1607 (vide para 16 to 18), etc. Secondly, what the petitioner really prays for is a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned detention order and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus for restraining the respondents from arresting him. Hence even if the petitioner is not in detention a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus can issue.

¶68

29 . The celebrated writ of habeas corpus has been described as `a great constitutional privilege of the citizen' or

¶69

- 13 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶70

`the first security of civil liberty'. The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention and its purpose is to safeguard the liberty of the citizen which is a precious right not to be lightly transgressed by anyone. The imperative necessity to protect those precious rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our founding fathers have lived through bitter years of the freedom struggle and seen an alien government trample upon the human rights of our citizens. It is for this reason that they introduced Article 21 in the Constitution and provided for the writs of habeas corpus, etc.

¶71

8. In UMMU SABEENA supra the Hon'ble

¶72

Supreme Court has held that in dealing with writ of habeas corpus, a technical objection cannot be entertained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

¶73

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶74

aforesaid decision has dealt with the case of a

¶75

detenue who was in preventive detention and in para 19 and 20 has held as under:

¶76

19 . Reference in this connection may be made to the Law of Habeas Corpus by James A. Scott and Charles C. Roe of the Chicago Bar [T.H. Flood & Company, Publishers, Chicago, Illinois, 1923] where the learned authors have dealt with this aspect in a manner which we should reproduce as we are of the view that the same is the correct position in law:

¶77

"A writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right of very ancient origin, and the preservation of its benefit is a matter of the highest importance to the people, and the regulations provided for its employment against an alleged unlawful restraint are not to be

¶78

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶79

construed or applied with overtechnical nicety, and when ambiguous or doubtful should be interpreted liberally to promote the effectiveness of the proceeding. [Ware v. Sanders, 146 Iowa, 233, 124 N.W. 958]".

¶80

20 . In this connection, if we may say so, the writ of Habeas Corpus is the oldest writ evolved by the Common Law of England to protect the individual liberty against its invasion in the hands of the Executive or may be also at the instance of private persons. This principle of Habeas Corpus has been incorporated in our Constitutional law and we are of the opinion that in a democratic republic like India where Judges function under a written Constitution and which has a chapter on Fundamental Rights, to protect individual liberty, the

¶81

- 16 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶82

Judges owe a duty to safeguard the liberty not only of the citizens but also of all persons within the territory of India. The most effective way of doing the same is by way of exercise of power by the Court by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus.

¶83

The aforesaid two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court have not been noticed by a division bench of this court while passing the order dated 19.04.2023 in WPHC No.100008/2023. In HOME

¶84

SECRETARY (PRISON) AND OTHERS supra, the issue involved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether a High Court can direct the release of a petitioner under the Government Order dated 01.02.2018. However, in the aforesaid decision, an objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus in the light of the provisions

¶85

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶86

contained in the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the aforesaid objections and held in para 30 as under:

¶87

30 . As already mentioned above, it is well settled law that even if the detenu is in private detention then also a writ of habeas corpus would lie. If the Rules are to be the masters and not the Constitution, then, probably in the Madras High Court no writ of habeas corpus would be entertained in the case of private detention. This would be against the spirit of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that reference to the Rules is of no aid whatsoever.

¶88

Thus, it is evident that the Hon'ble

¶89

Supreme Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable even in a case where the

¶90

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶91

detenue is in preventive detention. Similarly in

¶92

KANU SANYAL supra, a constitution bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the nature and scope of writ of certiorari and it has no where been held that the writ of habeas corpus does not lie in case a detenue is in preventive detention. A division bench of this court by placing reliance on the decision in HOME SECRETARY (PRISON) AND OTHERS AND KANU SANYAL supra has held that in case of a preventive detention, writ of habeas corpus does not lie. Even from the portions of judgment extracted in the order dated 19.04.2023 it cannot be gathered that Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶93

HOME SECRETARY (PRISON) AND OTHERS AND

¶94

KANU SANYAL supra has anywhere held that writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable in case of a preventive detention. Therefore, the order dated

¶95

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶96

19.04.2023 passed by division bench of this court in WPHC No.100008/2023 is held to be per incuriam and it is held that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in case of preventive detention.

¶97

We may now advert to the case in hand.

¶98

In the instant case, the detenue's wife submitted a representation on 02.01.2023 to the detaining authority as well as the State Government. The matter as referred to the Advisory Board on 02.01.2023. Thereafter, the detenue submitted a representation on 05.01.2023 to the detaining authority and the State Government. The representation submitted by the detenue was admittedly received by the State Government on 06.01.2023. the representation submitted by the detneue's wife was also forwarded to the Advisory

¶99

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶100

Board on 05.01.2023. However, it is pertinent to

¶101

note that even though, the State Government had received the representation on 06.01.2023, no decision on the representation was taken.

¶102

In ANKIT ASHOK JALAN supra, the representation was received by the detaining authority on 27.11.2019 and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board on 05.12.2019. Thereafter, the opinion of the Central Advisory Board was submitted on 06.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 an order of confirmation of detention

¶103

was passed on representation submitted by the detenue was rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶104

while taking note of the decision in case of

¶105

'K.M.ABDULLA KUNHI VS. UNION OF INDIA',

¶106

21 -

¶107

NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶108

(1991) 1 SCC 476 , in para 29 in ANKIT ASHOK JALAN has held as under:

¶109

29. We now come to the 3rd question. The facts in the instant case indicate that the comments of the Sponsoring Authority in respect of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.362 of 2019 Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India & Ors.representation were already received by the Detaining Authority. After receipt of letter on 27.11.2019 that the detenues were received in custody, the time for considering the representation started ticking for the Detaining Authority. But the representation was considered only on 14.01.2020 and the reason for such delayed consideration is that the report of the Central Advisory Board was awaited. We have already found that the Detaining Authority was obliged to consider the representation

¶110

- 22 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶111

without waiting for the opinion of the Central Advisory Board. Thus, there was no valid explanation for nonconsideration of the representation from 27.11.2019 till 14.01.2020. We must, therefore, hold that complete inaction on part of the Detaining Authority in considering the representation caused prejudice to the detenues and violated their constitutional rights.

¶112

13. In ANKIT ASHOK JALAN supra in para

¶113

18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶114

18 . There can be no difficulty with regard to the applicability of the principles in the 1st and the 4th stage of the aforesaid categories. The difficulty may arise as regards the application of principles at the 2nd and the 3rd stage. But that difficulty was dealt with sufficient clarity in

¶115

23 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶116

Jayanarayan Sukul15 and Haradhan Saha16 as stated hereinabove. If it is well accepted that the representation must be considered with utmost expedition; and the power of the Government is completely independent of the power of the Advisory Board; and the scope of consideration is also qualitatively different, there is no reason why the consideration by the Government must await the decision by the Advisory Board

¶117

We have carefully gone through the

¶118

statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent. The representation on behalf of the detenue, which was admittedly received by the State Government on 06.01.2023 was not decided till 03.02.2023. The State Government waited for the response of the Advisory Board, which was received

¶119

24 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶120

by it on 20.01.2023. and thereafter, an order was passed on 03.02.2023 rejecting the representation submitted by the detenue. The representation submitted by the detenue ought to have considered independently as the power of the government is completely independent power with that of advisory board and the scope of consideration is also different. No explanation has been furnished on behalf of the Government as to why it did not decide the representation and waited for the response from the Advisory Board.

¶121

In para 18 of ANKIT ASHOK JALAN supra, it has been held that the representation must be considered with utmost expedition and the power of the Government is completely independent power with that of the Advisory Board and the scope

¶122

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:19354-DB WPHC No.14 of 2023

¶123

of consideration is also different and therefore, there inaction on the part of the State government in not deciding the representation and waiting for the outcome of decision of Advisory Board cannot be countenanced. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in ANKIT ASHOK JALAN supra the non consideration of the representation independently by the State Government has caused prejudice to the detenue and has violated is fundamental rights.

¶124

For the aforementioned reasons, the orders dated 19.12.2022, 29.12.2022 and 20.01.2023 are hereby quashed. The detenue is set at liberty forthwith, in case, he is not required any connection with any other case.

¶125