Allowed

Smt. Shruthi T K v. Deputy Commissioner and

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2023WPHC/39/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the wife of a detenu challenging detention orders. The court held that supplying illegible documents violated Article 22(5), depriving the detenu of the right to make an effective representation, and quashed the orders under the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 11.04.2023, 19.04.2023 and 29.05.2023 quashed; detenu to be set at liberty if not required for other offences.

Smt. Shruthi T K Vs Deputy Commissioner and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

W.P.H.C. NO.39 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. SHRUTHI T.K. W/O SANTHOSH KUMAR S.K. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.695/6, 2ND FLOOR NEAR NEW MASJID SYED PEER BADAVANE LENIN NAGAR, NITTUVALLI DAVANAGERE 577004.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K, ADV.,)

¶14

AND:

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577004 BY SHIVANAND KAPASHI, I.A.S.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY HOME AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON BELLARY 583103.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1-R3)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶22

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE DETENTION OF SHRI SANTHOSH KUMAR .K @ KANUMA S/O KANUMAPPA, BY ORDER MAG/CR/253/2022-23 DATED 11.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-A AND B) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPROVED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO.HD 206 SST 2023 DATED 19.04.2023 (ANNEXURE-E) AS ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition has been by the wife of the detenue viz., Santhosh Kumar K alias Kanuma, in which the order dated 11.04.2023 passed under Section 3(1) of The Karnataka Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders & Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been assailed. The petitioner has also assailed the validity of the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the State Government under Section 3(3) of the Act.

¶26

Facts giving rise to filing of this petition

¶27

briefly stated are that the detenue has studied up to

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶29

VIIth Standard. An order of detention as passed against the detenue on 11.04.2003 and a copy of the aforesaid order was forwarded to the State Government for confirmation. The detenue submitted a representation on 15.04.2003 to the detaining authority. Thereafter, the detaining authority passed an order under Section 3(3) of the Act on 19.04.2023.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that illegible documents were supplied to the detenue and therefore, he was deprived of the right to make an effective representation and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated in law. It is contended that failure to supply legible documents has violated the fundamental rights guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

¶31

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the order passed by

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶33

the Commissioner of Police, which has been confirmed by the State Government.

¶34

We have considered the submissions made on

¶35

both sides and have perused the record. The Hon'ble Supreme court in 'STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS VS. BUYAMAYUM ABDUL HANAN ALAIAS ANAND AND ANOTHER', 2022 SCC ONLINE SC

¶36

1455 in para 17 and 18 has held as under:

¶37

17 . It is well settled that right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information that will enable him to make an effective representation. No doubt, this right is again subject to the right or privilege given by clause (6). At the same time, refusal to supply the documents requested by the detenu or supply of illegible or blurred copies of the documents

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶39

¶40

relied upon by the detaining authority amounts to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Although it is true that whether an opportunity has been afforded to make an effective representation always depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶41

18 . What will be the effect when the detenue is deprived of effective representation or denial relied of supply of upon documents by the detaining authority has been considered by this Court in Ramchandra A. Kamat v. Union of India and Others as under:

¶42

“6. The right to make a representation is a fundamental right. The representation thus

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶45

made should be considered expeditiously by the government. In order to make an effective representation, the detenu is entitled to obtain information relating to the grounds of detention. When the grounds of detention are served on the detenu, he is entitled to ask for copies of the statements and documents referred to in the grounds of detention to enable him to make an effective representation. When the detenue makes a request 5 (1980) 2 SCC 270 for such documents, they should be supplied to him expeditiously. The detaining authority in preparing the grounds would have referred to the statements and documents relied on in the grounds of detention and would be

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶48

ordinarily available with him — when copies of such documents are asked for by the detenue the detaining authority should be in a position to supply them with reasonable expedition. What is reasonable expedition will depend on the facts of each case.”

¶49

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by

¶50

Hon'ble Supreme Court, we may advert to the facts of

¶51

the case in hand. In the instant case, the documents which have been filed to the detenue have been produced before us. Learned High Court Government Pleader has also gone through the same and was unable to dispute the statement that the documents supplied to the detenue were not legible. Thus, it is evident that the detenue has been deprived of his right to make an effective representation. Therefore, the

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:24905-DB WPHC No.39 of 2023

¶53

order passed under Section 3(1) and Section 3(3) of the Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶54

The orders dated 11.04.2023, 19.04.2023 as

¶55

well s the order dated 29.05.2023 issued by the State Government are quashed. The respondents are directed to set the detenue at liberty in case, he is not required in connection with any other offence.

¶56

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Smt. Shruthi T K v. Deputy Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shruthi T K v. Deputy Commissioner and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs M/S Alliance Projects

Bangalore Development Authority Vs M/S. Mittal Steel Limited

Smt. Ravina Vs the State of Karnataka

N. Manjunath Vs Deepa

Sri H S Prasanna Vs Smt Rithu @ Mehamooda

Mr D Babu Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi