Goonda Act | Detaining Authority Has To Provide Documents Translated In Language Known To Detenu: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court observed that a detaining authority is under a bounden duty to provide the details of detention along with translated copy (i.e., documents translated in the language known to the detenu).
The court added that failing to provide legible documents to individuals detained 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) violates their fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by Detenue’s Father challenging the Deputy Commissioner’s order of detention.
The Court noted that the detention order was invalid because the Advisory Board didn't have enough time to review the records, despite the State/Deputy Commissioner following the deadline for confirming the order. This violated Section 10 of the Goonda Act, making the detention non-compliant with the law.
"The law also contemplates that the detaining authority is under a bounden duty to provide the details of detention along with translated copy (i.e., documents translated in the language known to the detenu), to the detenu within 21 days of detention order being passed as compliance to Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act to enable the detenu to submit representation as against the detention order supra. Failure by the detention authority to furnish the translated copies of such documents has not only resulted in violation contemplated under the Constitution but also under the Goonda Act, which mandates for the same”, the Bench comprising Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K observed.
Advocate Nanjunda Gowda MR appeared for the Petitioner and Government Pleader Anoop Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Mr Roshan Jameer (Detenue)was accused of multiple offences and deemed a threat to society since 2013. In response to this, the Deputy Commissioner (Fourth Respondent) issued a detention order 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). The Detenu was informed of the order and detained in Central Prison.
Later, the State (Second Respondent) confirmed the detention order. The case was then forwarded to the Advisory Board, which, after a hearing, upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Following the Advisory Board's confirmation, the State extended Detenu's detention for one year starting from April 27, 2023, citing Section 13 of the Goonda Act. Aggrieved, the Detenue’s Father approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition, challenging the order.
The Court framed the following issue:
“Whether the order of detention dated 27.04.2023 passed by the 4th respondent, detaining the son of the petitioner Sri. Roshan Jameer @Jameer @Jammu is sustainable under law?”
The Court noted that any order issued by the competent authority under section 3(2) of the Goonda Act must be sent to the State Government. This submission should include the grounds and details justifying the order, along with all pertinent materials for the State Government's review. Furthermore, the Bench noted that the provision specifies that an order made under Section 3(2) of the Goonda Act is valid for a maximum of 12 days, contingent upon approval from the State Government.
In this case, the Bench observed that the Deputy Commissioner (Fourth Respondent) authorized by the state under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act, has invoked powers under Section 3(2) of the Goonda Act to issue a detention order without specifying a duration. The order directs the police (respondent No.3) to detain the individual (detenu) in the Central Prison, Parappana Agrahara, Bengaluru. All supporting materials were submitted to justify the detention order, and the State Government affirmed it on May 6, 2023. Subsequently, both the detention order and its confirmation were presented to the Advisory Board on May 8, 2023, and after consideration on June 1, 2023, the Advisory Board confirmed the detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Fourth Respondent).
Furthermore, the Court observed that the responsibility lies with the respondents to provide the detenu with the detention orders and all supporting materials within five days under Section 8 of the Goonda Act. This provision aims to facilitate the detenu in presenting a meaningful representation to the competent authority against the order of detention issued by the State Government, the Bench added.
The Court observed that, despite the Respondents adhering to the timeline for confirming the detention order, there were deficiencies in complying with Section 10 of the Goonda Act. The Advisory Board did not receive the case within the prescribed three weeks after the detention order was issued on April 27, 2023. The file reached the Advisory Board on June 1, 2023, 35 days after the detention order, whereas Section 10 mandates a 21-day timeframe for submitting materials. Although Section 11 allows the Advisory Board seven weeks to forward its decision, the timelines are intended to provide ample time for a thorough review of materials.
The Bench held that given the anomalies in the materials and the delayed submission to the Advisory Board, it is evident that the Board did not have sufficient time to examine the records. As a result, the Court held that the order of detention could not be considered compliant with the mandates of the Goonda Act.
“Though Section 11 of the act provides that the advisory board shall forward its decision within 7 weeks, but Section 10 mandates that the materials to be placed before it within 21 days. If both the section are read together carefully, it is evident that such timeline is provided in order to accord sufficient time for the Advisory Board to go through the entire materials furnished to the detenu and also relied upon by the respondents while passing the impugned detention order in order to examine the material aspects keeping in mind Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. On examination of 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”, the Bench noted.
Furthermore, the Court observed that when dealing with a Habeas Corpus case concerning preventive detention, the court refrains from delving into the legal aspects of the offences committed by the detenu. Instead, the Bench emphasized that the focus is on examining the Constitutional safeguards provided under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. Therefore, considering both the provisions of the Goonda Act and the Constitutional mandates, the Court held that the contested orders should be quashed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ and set aside the impugned detention order.
Cause Title: Sri. Mohammad Shafiulla v The D. G. And I.G.P. Of Police