"Although Detention Orders Put Detenue To Prejudice, They Are Exceptional Price Which A Citizen Pays For Being A Member Of Civilized Society": Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has observed that although detention orders put the detenue to prejudice, it is the exceptional price for being a member of civilized society.  

In that context, the Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said that, "Detention orders of the kind put the citizen to prejudice, cannot be much disputed. However, they are an exceptional price which a citizen pays for being a member of civilized society, for conditions applicable to him and not applicable to the rest. The avalanche of criminal cases which are still pending, many after investigation and the rest in pre-Charge Sheet stage repel the contention that the detenue is absolutely innocuous. After all, it is not a case of indefinite detention. The Act itself prescribes a maximum period of one year as is specified in the impugned orders. Section 14 provides for the revocation or modification of the Detention Order by the State Government. The detenue can tap this provision. He can also seek temporary release from detention or for the curtailment of the period of detention as provided under Section 15, if grounds do exist therefor."

The petitioner challenged the Detention Order dated April 4, 2024, issued by the Deputy Commissioner 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. She also questioned the Government order dated May 3, 2024, which confirmed the detention for one year.

The petitioner argued that her husband, who knows only spoken Kannada and Tamil, was not provided translations of the documents into Tamil. She claimed that he was not given copies of bail orders referenced in the Detention Order and that the documents he received were not legible. Additionally, she contended that there was no clear connection between the alleged offenses and the grounds for detention.

The State Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the detainee understood Kannada, Tamil, and English, and that he was given all necessary documents. The prosecutor also noted that Mr. Sharath had numerous serious offenses pending and had participated in the Advisory Board proceedings without raising complaints. The Advisory Board's proceedings were submitted for the Court's review.

The Court observed that, "It is the primary duty of State as the guardian to protect the lives & liberties of the subjects; this duty has become onerous nowadays, cannot be disputed. Crime rate is shooting up as the official statistics furnished by the National Crime Records Bureau, Bengaluru, show. Women & children and aged & ailing have become the vulnerable sections at the hands of hooligans. The fear of law is diminishing; sensible sections of society live in anxiety & insecurity. Higher level of vigilance by the Administration has become inevitable. As of necessity, a larger leverage has to be conceded to it for ensuring peace & tranquility in the society. Measures like preventive detention are aimed at this. The criminal antecedents of detenue galore on record and they lend credence to the contention of learned SPP that his detention is inevitably ordered after exploring all alternatives."

In light of the same, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Smt Nandini vs The DG and IGP of Police & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment