Karnataka High Court
Smt. Selvi vs Commissioner Of Police on 25 November, 2011
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, C.R.Kumaraswamy
'tie
. 1,;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1{iA.'RNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2611
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE I} V SHYLENDRA
AND _ _ .
THE m:>N*BLE MILJUSTICE C R "'
Wri2fPeti1ior2, [HG] No.1 67 0:120; 1'. ~ .. f
Between: '
SIVYI'. SELVI
W/O PALANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS;
RESIDING AT NO. 1855.
10m CROSS, ntrm MAIN'
NEW BAGALUR LAYOUT
BANGALORE , " ":?E':mQNER
[4 M S §J'fi§JALi ,1 &: '
.... _ ADV.,]
L commisslomfim §:$FAj1F:§:;,;r:::»»..
BANGALOR'E('If'Y; ' A V
BANGALOREVW 55.0' :30;
STATE Q9 E£ARNA'f,é1KA«'
" 3Y";'I*3 '1:~si§,r3Ez~E;TARY
' §7I7('}1%,{EEL--vz%§§I}5'7§fR";"3Eg'€Si?'OR'§'
' 9:27;9A:-3':¢r..z:§E":*3'i"; ,
~v§3.:i-1ANA .$9I;':>Hs+'aa
B'A?%GA;g::>R§. 4» 56;'; em
V ggmzaé §'Z'~UP§:RfNTE;\"§DENT
_ .:f3§*§fxI'FR§%LPR;EE':s%E\;E
a::3x:€3g:,e:>a§ ~ 5&3 mg RE}S?€}'§*~§BE; ":8
EB'? SR1 E R £F=~EBERESHg EECQFE
THIS WRET PE'1§'}L'ION UNDER ARTICLE 225 0? 'ma
*~._;C_'.'DE*~IS'£'§'§'U'1'EON OF' EEKEDIA IS FILELE3 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR '"§'E§E
PETWIONER PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE HEGH CGURT BE PLEASED
4
continuity ef the habit of indulging in such criminal
activities and white as many as fifteen criminal cases are
mentioned wherein the eietenu was involved as
person ranging frem the year 1998 up tea the yea: _
4. It is also indicated that while he>A1j1§u:i been " =
only one case i.e., in Crime N0545
been acquitted in eight other retertect
in the grounds of detentton eases are
pending trial before the Lt such case is
mentioned to registered by
Banasawztkjti the' offences punishable under
sections Bgtfiin respect ef an incident on
v4.E.;6t'.5.2t}«§§gtveheretii'-V--Vtit_e__Aeeteen detainee with some of his
.Ae_'eeeeie.tee an unlatvfui eeeembiy and were feuné
=aeittt':.tAete;§d}.:fi,.t 6.535, end 8,fi€§T that the geese}: flee the
eeeine ettth his aeeempiieee, was ebeeeediteg end
that eaeh eetiieitiee eeveetee erepeeetty ea
of the gereee to indutge in ertmiea}; activities and
htééiieting 9.5 e goendea, having fetmefi a gang ef his aeeeeiatest
s K /.t
J
5
terrerizing people, disturbing pubiie order and peace and
such threat and terrorizing of peopie and partieuiariy which
dissuaded the witnesses from depeeing against hirra..V'V;}e;:fcre
the court resulting in acquittal cf cages for want if s'1ifޤ:ie1it. .
evidence and in this Vi€W of the 3TI1a?Zi€§".,...thf3 pexebni net " "
amenable $0 the ordinary laws of the:":iar::§d,A~'it Wee fiec¢eeea§*y:
to detain him to prevent the p-ereen frdm: Hike * %'
activities in future and therefere thefivrderj is 1§e;ee_ed,.v§
5. The gmunds accompanying 'detention have
ail apprised the "':;--~'fight to make a
representeti0n_ ' £9 authority against the
detention order: 'by the same to the detaining
e,1;:her§:§,;§! and the Same through the
fieratrai; Prison, where he is detained, It
fike repreeeriiaiien ear; be made is the
£€3+=f3':?e§':1e;§e.;§';*?Lv:i.0§"Vfierneieke egame': the deteniiee erder see if:
neiee gbie §e:"e5e2fded ie the Seefze §{}'§f€§'E}§I§€E7§§; fer
_g:;c{::etAif:;§.e:'ei:i02'; ené that the Seete Gevernmene eheii in Ehree
frem the &eie of the deteniien, make a reference to
3;
1%'
6
the A<:iv'is01'y Board in t€}:'1;"I1S of secticsn 9 of the Act and the
report from the Advisary Board wili be obtained and dgtenu
aise had a right of representation ':0 the Advisory
if a representation is made it will bf? '
Advi50ry Board and if the detenu d«?:si»rcg Ru
heard in person by the Advisory Baird
through his next friend, but nothhny
6. In supper": of the Writ are
urged such as iack of famihéirity in which
the orders and h1'fé:iish§.?3i_"a.r£§1:VVfChmmunicated to
the detenL:i1...Asu.Ci1 Kannada, claiming that he
is C0nVersar1ii"'WitE'1 "1éj_.:guag€ and therefore the Order
vgets vitié;t€fdi': tha'iR?f£1€§"§"§:'JaS :10 proper materia} befere the
a.':;i:?1!{>1:fi'Tt3;f_'t9 be satisfied abeut {he need fer passing
V the 0:"ii€:"'0fV§:'}§€;firé:z1iive detsraiion agaifigt the deienu; éhai iiha
Qrder is4"a§S'{:a Qifiiaieé far the reasan that Staie materiai and
sigfiizé é*%;'€:':'fi$ havé been igéiem mm gtghsidaraéian {gr {ha
V" _§%;§rp1{3s€ 05 pagséhg an Grdaz" Gf p}:eveI"§.*:§V€ éietezfiiieh; with
.{¢f€§"€fiC€ t0 the i3'}£)i€i€E2fS which aacurrfid in the yam" 1998,
$5:
7
partieuiarly, as indicated at S1. Nos, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 7 of
the cases referred to in the grounds of detention and
therefere there is :10 nexus to the event and the
detention order; that dubbing events of the V'
and 2011 tegether for the purpose vof"pa.ssi-egggfiwi.Of.' 2
detention is more to Cever up <3e' 't he.v
connectivity between the present*..gf~d<er aifid the "pzi'st ei%ents; V
that the detaining authority 13.of:ieed""'ehat the
detenu had been acquitted .e.feepee{v Qfafl-'3AAeV.ee_ees reieting to
iI1Cid€1'1'ES at Six -to for passing
the order beifig' ardeféfiassed by the court in
these ea.ses ea_11i<:§ been reiied upon by the
detaining. authe:"i,fiy'.eveii. narrated in the grounds of
:_;fi1Ve'Ee--31;ti:}§e: 'eezt 319% f1e":é'ie§'$_i:1g these erdere ef efleeluéttalg has
de:§§.e€}.'.eihee::::'<*i,e'€eé:%;:_i.~aI: eppertuniiy ef making an effeeiive
""";:*eprese;:';f:et§eeLefzd therefore 'asieieting ihe eafegueré E31
""T.-1'i,*;§ei§€:'e3e22§%3E.&:e§ the Senetimzéee. ef Eadie and eiee efae nee»
§:;::":*1ie§':£3*eeg ef file beii egpiieeiéeeg befi erdere "ie the éetemz.
fies...-egein denieé the detenu free: making are effeetive
LL"'«, i'e§reeentatier1 fez: the reason that the éeteirzing auiherity
8
has Specifically mentioned it as 3 ground of detention that
the detenu was misusing the bail ofciers by violating the
conditions Qf bail etc, and also the improper infqtngfiiign
virtually misieadmg information given to the .
regard to the possibility of a represenfiggtiqn " "
by the detaining authority for revo<3:'afiie;r'1'.rf;f
having virtuaily misguided i':v}:?1a.t'
authority had no pow:-ir forAV__£€:€§»*<:3_k_ir;Lg .f£1¥3:V. 0;f_V§£er and
representation addressedvév;'n authafity W111
be forwarded to the GJSO a denial of
constitutiqfiéf Ea representation to the
detaining zfutharity had the pews? to ravake
the ordegefz 1e$S2E. *L,1p-f0 31:-'V: '§ate of appmvai G? the order by
'Sisgiéi'G§*:;ei"nmeI:ef$liféfifich again is fiefiiai {3f the safeguaifi
1,:r3:<}..@$§'..;AV_*§"t:V:f§§it.%AM.v :35 $16 Canstiiutien 0? E.§1c§ia.? have aii
V 3;i'tiaté&'-«.f;he__;3:*:f§é:" (sf éeiemxian sis'
F?
nS;'€3;i%§§:?:§ie:r:'5€ gf abjeciiang hag hwy: fiisé an heizaif Q?
:3*:€*§}";:.G ':*;s:i§~:*:':s 1 ":0 3 and the Qrder af éetentien fig seughi ta be
1. H 1
8. It is pointed out that the detonu. had been fuI:r,ii3h.ed
with documents along with the grounds of detentioo'
Specific averrnerlt in this regard as in paragrapfr-7.6 as;
under:
"6. It is submittezd that pursuanifo thefios%'def of "
the detention passed, the respondent au,:hc;riz;-mo
have provided -"the grounds ojidetention éizizing with the relied upon the ;_.rnateria£-- to-ffa.-9' detér:.u,e...vv"T?1e grounds of detentiozi"'~haLié bee-r;o.s'applied to the detenue both in I{arirta_,cia"o<,1i*1c:i ErzgEisfz.Vlanguages and it is submitted _£hcfi£_iih_erg2 '£§§;fIo'j_::*ariation in English and_Kg:._r_mojda v'or3£Gn"--ar:d":os_ such, the averrnents tftzioiss regc1réi_ ore oievo:'d'or'1 merits. otherwise zit' ié geio;¢roi3:'fV151ééid.§i1g ououbohalf of the respondents that the dote%}iion-- for jusiifiabla reason on relevant_"rnatefi3}:V_:€h.a§:£ 1i'At"v.do'TéiS not call for being quashed or ;jiriio.r;**'fe§:g§ £537 £1135 oouV:;f53:1 the exercise: of juriadioiion undor %;§§;=.v{";..or:stiiution of Enéia for issue of 8; xzrrii of A"'V'v<%e;"€€iofa:_fi ami goéeaéod for dismissai of iho petition. .. E: $3'-ézzoéoaiodg in '$15 counéor on bohaéf of §§':$ 4:fe.s'p'ofi:io'{r:€S that the dotemion ordor wag approirod by the VT .:Sf?€aiae: Governmeni on 15.?".20};,E; that the matter was 3% E0 referred to the Advisory Board 0:1 25.37.2811; that the Advisory Board met an 138.2011 and eensitiered the ease ef the petitioner's husband and opined 01': the erder as per its opinien fiated 1'?.8.2{)11 which was reeeiveé by thvetistete Government and the State Government has _ order of detention on 17'.9.2011 and 2 is indicated for one year from the 537.2011 and it is therefore axfged ail safeguards in teams of Article K égfeesttiutien 0f India have 2111 been adhei'eel' t0'A«_}a1:s;g';I:i and therefcwre the
10. We 1{av§ Javali, learned Counsel for the petitgerxertt e1*::d5:'Sr:}:'.= Itigtieetehg learned Gevernment Pieeder :.'j'e;5p?'§.eeri;e:'g fee 1"e.epee.ée1i'te at eeme ieegth. E§'..__ :?3.:"'Vi'.tA ttgfayaii, ieereefi. eetmeei fer the eetitienee Z 'thee reéeed fe~u_:fj'.eententie§:e, AA Zt*~.._ie Htfiretiy urged that tize manner in wtzieh the aethority has infiieatefi to the deteeu is right "£0 3,", 11 make representation. to the detaining authority has been in a language or in a manner Virtually misleading the deteyau of his valuable right; that ii: Only indicates 1:116 repreeeizifiafiiovn made to the detaining authority wiil be fonva;:fded:éT:'Vt§.;$" ' State GOVernmer1t and therefore &1S{§ "§:>::--J'ay:§ 65 u lack of awareness and duty by particularly? as the detain.ing t0 revoke the Qrder on a repzfgsezziétiofi being 1"né:d€'*"0r an he being of such Vi€W that it requiréslbtb 1:)§'--3?_e:sfi)"::ed in terms of the provisions of §s€'z:tj:§>n cf fhe"Aé'f re;.1_£i§.hg as under:
".14; ReDoic1:.vtia:71 af4C2.s=:tent.ion orders.- {1} "Without Ijiithe provisions of section 2}, cf' the }{a;'.n£:v'_aica Generai Clauses Act:
_ 1899; :2: de-iefatidri order may, at any time, be " ;*.ev0§céd.__ er zrzedgfied by the State 2_~{}Qa}ernm€fzi;."'Eéaiwiihstcmding that the aide?' _ §1as E;*.€en made by an officer menziened in = _ V3§.§.E3" §S~'3f{fi'e:F:€3?1 {2} sfseciizm 3.
" .§2}' 'f'§:é_F%:=:}e{:&£€0n 02* expiry Qf 0; éeienizbn arder ,.__'{E*n2 .-sinafier in this $ub~S€C£ié9:*a referred Ea as €518 eariier deierziiazz Qrfierf shaii {mtg "V-wézeihez' suit}: €a3'°i:'e:" deieyzziarz srder has §€e:": mafia bgfiere or afier fie €QE"F'i}"E'1€3?,€€¥'?"§,4€'F"é§ af fféé Eiarszaiafca Preaéeéziiaré offiangereus Aczivifiies Gffioeééeggers. 3mg» afiknders, Soandasf Enzmomi imffic Qjfenders and S£2,:m--Gra,bE3ers éflmendmenif Act, 398? bar me making Qf anather 93¢...
a *'x.12
detention. order {hereinafter in this SL£b~_.._ section referred to as the su.bsequent_ detention order) under section 3 against -the. same person: " L" ' Pmvided that in a case where no = _ have arisen after the revcyeiiition 'or e2y:p_i:*y_:,3f the earlier detention order ;_-rrz(.::}a:1e=..agciineifl.
such person, the maxinunnxpertod fot_~_w"hieh ° such person may bekietaineei in purjsi.::m,<:e of the subsequent detention order snail in no case, extend beyond the"'e:q;iry of .a~_pen'od of twelve months,' from'*t'the -.§£:1Vte. ._ of detention under the earlier. cletentierz cir*cie;i"' which has reserved such a"p0-wet'in'-.the'.deteining authority under the proVieienstA1Lef_ the Ka:na'teka General Clauses Act.
1899.
113. It is Ltrged detention ie vitiated as 2;
Very valueble eg':;§ Q1' a representation at the eariiest "§?<5ifit.QVft"?i.f51é' is" *'fiTiU3}:§deI1ied ineefaz' as the peseibfiity of the eifattieritgf himeeif reveking the erdet ef iietentien.
"=es.,:.§pe:"t ef thie eeneeetéen, Eye: Eiiren S éeafeéig ' Eeefneei eeuneei fer the petiiienei" has pieeeé reiienee en the ..;}%i§figment of the Supreme Ceurt in the case ef 'STATE 9F yél, ' ' 13 MAHARASHTRA ANI) OTHERS 1:. SANTOSH ACHARYA' reported in AIR 2909 sc 2504 a:i§1":.:"$;*.--:%f£h reference to the observations centained in par::gra~gt1V?5t u this Judgment, it is sought: to be u::*g'ed'«th2§,t tb:eV'V:vS_u;;:)re:ne*; Court in the context of the role of a has passed an order under secti'evt:.1:"'{3[2] efw V Prevention of Dangerous Acey:t:¢st'¢f Vlifioiitleggers, Drugs Offenders and 981, which it is Submitted is in» ,KeLrt1ataka Act, it is observed that to be so only on ané after " :;'f(§o*a:'I:f.§;rVff_iv1I1e'1:'§;tWettaproves the order of deteratien authority: that as it is indicated. -in thiei :_i:ec:ieioIi';- State Government becomes a "ifietéintfigtitatiizherity efivttefid after the order of apprevai by it, ftfiitttthezz theevéietetizifzg eutheritjg; eentinuee te 'be 50 end aise kae_ t§1eAp«z3We_:' .:'~ttt1e detaining autherity ineiuding the pewer W Vteeveeettezz} and themfere the manner in whieh the detemi ;i:'s:e7Je:;*2:epp::";:eed ef his fight fez' making 3, reereeentatien fie Vetriie-*'wt;§eh virtuaiigi takes away the right and the erder gets L 4' ' . _ tiitiatedw "M 14
15. Mr. Kjran S Javaii, learned caunsei for the petit-igner has submitted hawever small a period it may be, Case, on facts it is faund that an ercier cf ciet*¥c*§€f:i0:*1».:£:ii'§2¥;te?f1'T 5.27.20} 1 having '£36311 approved by i:h;éA Sia;1'§ "{«}Gfv'E'jAfiflI'a:311€:§i1'f' 15.7.2011 :i.e:., within ten days, up to flay, up days, the deta1".r1ing autharity such :10t exhibiting awareness of Vdiréfiting the detenu about this pQssi33i1ifIf%§,?:*_V§.>'.fA': V§#f{é;i€j%ini%§gx-fijggf»representatian of the detenu therefore the misdirection "t>'f the dtiztenu under Articie 22%] oft}ié' E§§31{ist;€'ufic>n'cf India.
16. The 1'16:Xi:__::{§:1fc:i't§V§1=:::':;%;1;g§3d by Sri. Khan 8 Javali, is ":",§:ga:"di.:_'§g ;:1nn~ffif':<;ishi1r:g of rafifid u§Gn and ffiffifffid ":0 V{.i¥:}€i;Egfi}*3YV1{S '«a;::s d1"*--._:_:1 this gwegard hag éravsm G111' $§eeifi¢ V attéiaiisyi x"'§$¥ '.'f;3%1éf::.graunds raigefi in pa§*ag:'apE3~«12 9%" Ska g:€j':i'£i@"i1 géfgd {he narrafizien in '(ha gmufiég af éeéemiaa, §;::f§ii;{:'€;§E--§,:"§y5 $en£%2":€:e Eeadmgg " ...................... "Being afraid Sf year §§@¥"éd& = activities, the witnesses have not deposed evidences properiy in the Cami againsé gas; and as 15 a result, most of the cases have ended in acquittal and in same cases you have threatened the complainants to compromise with yea. To prove this, in K G Halli PS Cr. No.274/1998 u/3. 323, 324, $06128} r"/'Lu. 34 {PC the compiainants were c:j%"afz:i ef your goonda activities, they corrqoromisezi the case in the court of I 19* ACMM on 27.1 1.2O05.7'?_
17. It is contended that the detaining aut.hQ:ity'.j1:ex%§1tf;gw_ heavily retried upon the factum of the 2 acquitted in as many as eight cases fr-efigjiv = cases which had been registe:"ec1_ ageiizaégt hiIen"':iju1ftngV§ years 1998 {:0 2011 and the facttusjh the having been enlarged on bail e:i1,i.:<*}1_tig_t1'A1_e .:s'u_ch cases on his applicatioiiahd else.'t-het,_th.e'detenu having misused the bait Conditions 0r'"Vi_Q1a,teVCi_t191e bzfii conditions, having indulged in 4threetehfingt'~the e?i'tt1,eee_ee and t,err{::~rizir1g them? having 311 beegz, : I1'i;€:I1?iVE0§}.€}':§"'vE1S gtotmd, non furnishing ef erfiere of %?acqe;e§e'p'é;s§;e:e court and aiee hen furntehing at the ep§Eiea.t§_e:1e:.:: bait and bait erdere ameunte it; her; keg fiee:2me:::.te 3:"Ef€:§E'E'€§ ta ané reheé meet: which ;iA'LEE°E'} depriveé the detent: ef making an effective .feeteeentatien for reveeetion cf order 0:' fat' his reieeee ané if";
H, QM, %:>:;,.
16 is therefore submitted that, that again is in violation of Articie 22{5} of the Constitution of Inéia.
18. In support of such submission, Mr. Kiran learned counsel for the petitioner has placed ~ Judgment of the Supreme Court iI_1_~th€f ' SONI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND oitaeéks? rep<§'1't,e<.:1_u 1981 SC 431 with particular» .fé§erenAe'e.__t0_ei3eef§%'3;tidi1 in".
paragraph~7' of this Judgment reeds 3.s"i113,de1'§:
£5 .............. .. In our to which reference is madee-,in._the must be supplied to the determ .:}:e 'ggrounds'.
and also the *deeié;i<:{f1._:df. flif1.eVV"SIi:preme Court in the case at"
'KIRIT KUna21:2_ 'erI2a.n§A.zv KUNDALIYA vs. UNION or _..i'£S?DIA_»' QTHEi32S.'._..}.'ep0rted in AIR 1981 SC 1621 eVqu5i*éeier;t" SCC ffirif 4~"?'.§ with specific reference te e§:;;é'efvatie':':e..5':;n peregraphww :35 thie Jeégmemt reading "--«.._,4ae.;2::der;~~ V' _ £8 iasengfeea :'§se%"ef@:'e, 3220:: the eebjeeiiee eaiisjeezien eauid enég be aseertainea', from er' rejEee:'e& sin ihe grenade af the order' ef deteneéen;
" passed against the detenu otherwise withouf giving the grounds the mere suabjeefiézie satisjtéeiien of 17 detaining authority would make the order of detention ineemptete and ineffective. Once the documents are referred to in the grounds of detention it becomes the bounden duty of detaining authority to suppiy the same to detenu as part of the grounds or part pastet: ' grounds of detention. There is no particulo;':--ehefni :"
in the expressions 'relied on', 'referred to', ~-fbaseci on' because ultimately all these, e..v.;z7ess_ionS"
one thing, namely, that the st:.bjec_tioe V A of the detaining authority has éheent "arrived ..at_ "
the documents menttoneet in the grennds of detention. The question whether the.gr*ottrtd[9Qhoue been referred to, relied on 0t"'I'}tiI,f§_(2Ct on;--te"rnerelg or. matter of describing. the I1ai7IJ.I'€u"Qf the 'grounds. Even so in the case of" E3_nmehe.ndh:eA Kamot 1;. Union of India 4:: threeéjudgev .E3eneh._cte-eision of this Court to whichone of A.r,.Ls_' ;'}--?az.al..Ali;'J.t,' ]. ,m,s (1 party, clearly held _ thtiLt--. even theJ.:doC'u°rnen'tS':«referred to in the grounds oj'§:ietent--i,on;_haue to 'bejtirnished to the detenu. ht ' and submitted. ti;-at"..V$t1ei1.,::tbo3.:1g the materiai which was referrefi to anti _obvieue_}§%"""te1ie<:% expert by the éetainirag :.'§a§t1':horit5?, invent-A.furnieI'1ing at the eeeuments such as the Jn'd;gn;_ent in aeogetttei etéete and the hat} "'~""ep§Eiee;t<tent.-Ftteijt AtOI"d€t'S eonetttene ef which fie sate te have "tn-Ti,*'Vi:%ee't%,Aef§o§e;te_ei 'eff; the eeteeu in the eetnten e? the detaining e;:_;t§*:1o7'tit§?'§ having not been futnieheé to the detenn, the notderfigete vitieted for net aeeeréing an epportunity to the 18 detenu for effecting representation to the detaining authority.
19. Per centra, appearing on behalf of Sri. Indiresh, iearnecl Government I:?1ea£ie1f§has' xfeherfi-e_n't3fy'A urged that the safeguard given' uhdefv.Ai*i:ie1ehV'v:22:i$}_VVefhi the Constitution of India is cempriseel'-.,i:h-.,1;}M0 first part being one of furnishing anfi material based on which thE3'A'{)1fiC1€I':.f}f passed and the second opportunity to the representation and while it the detenu has been furnished grounds' en day of serving the order of vqietentierii. grief es;e1'1"~V:h_e_:"ehed upon éeeumente have also been :ft:*:n1eE;e<i:'3if1v<€_ therefore the first requirement has been ;'.,, ? . tfmE:% :?};.fe:Eu P: Vpeieieé eef: iE"'2a.%'i iheegh there fie me mentéee 5:5 fee/finer in which 'ithe reereeenieitien is flee}: "i£?'i§'£§1 by . -ihehyiagetheriiy ef the Staie Geveenment in the '%.3J"3°i'§Z petfiizien, ii *é_;s:.'ia fact that the éetem: had 0:1 ihe basis 0? the intimaeien IQ given to him, given a representation dated 15.7.2011 and that representation had been placed befaare ihe State Gavernment and the State Governmerit, in fact, had ferwarded the file reiating to passing of the detent1QI'i,:.:érder in respect of the detenu for opinion of the AfivisQ§'y'--BQ2§;"é _._{§I:. 251.2011 and with opinion of the Advisory--E§_§3:1f(i.::hav'§»;:g--«., been received on 17.8.2011, thereafter 1f=I'.I 6z3€iE§ well 213 the entire matter Was;ii3e_f0r& Vi;1*1_€ ' State"{}3#qf€rr:E:nér1t"'%. and the State Government xvhi1eVL4fej¢c.ted flietfitépréfsentation cf the cletenu on 8_9.201'}_.:7a_n'iozcsjef the detentian for a peri;;$§f1V' 0¥fT'@.§ii¢ \xI$':$vvf;assed on 1'?.9.201I and therefare ii Vcar1n0.t *E§§:V_ bsa_f1 fC17'«.tE':ere is either any denial sf 0pp0r§uA.:'-xiiy (if efeiay' ii: i*é9:*esen'{ati0m and therefare the * dEé!e@::f;§'«3f?f1 EiZ§§};'€ié"1T'fCaI1I#;§':§m§€ in any way interfered with etc' 21 .%z§r{§'i§'1'V:I'*::'§§§V:;,g'T%1:%€iVV'i0 ihfi cariiamion mgarding fifiifiilii being 41:9: még:ié ...a.ia:'are sf hig sigh: far §"8§§"€S€f1'i§Ca§§{}i'}; 'aeing €'§Z}$§§€?€§ 'by' ?'€,Es$ §€ia§E"§iE'2;g: 2m€t;E:a>r§€j§ 'sfifsrfi ihe eréfii" GE .___"a';§ppV:j:8:rai ES passeé; by the State Gavefnmeifi WEE'; reference 2G to the actual wording in the grounds 0if<:{ef:e11ii<:>r: reading as under:
"If you desire £0 make a representation to the Detaining Authority against the Detention Order; you may do so and address it to the undersignedée and forward the same through the Superin£e{1_deVftte_4'»e. of Central Prison where you are detained.--§__ Y€>.iLI*-. ~'~' representatian will be forwarded to the Gouernrnenf." "
it is pointed out that the detenu had:.'be;ee~';a;5prise'd has a right to make a represe»:1_ft%3a:ior1 Abefore 1i;he«:._jdetaihiI1g'~.L' authority and no right Qf detefii1~--. has ifieery denied or safeguard violated as the"4'deteJ."mv apprised of hie right to detaining authority;
that the f*epresVe:1te;i§§3fi»"E3311. «be ferwarded is the State Government is er_3.V ineieijendent act and if ii; is ferxvarded to Sjéefice €§ever;1mei:V{;"'i€ éoee net in any way éetraet free:
Of hie right under Artieie 22%} ef the '€ensfi'?ae.:ie::' Ee§'§.e_ which had 8;§§"'&8fi'§?' been made Emewn H " 4f:1?; *:1'2e;fefi§':»e%" gee? cf this earagraph 31:5 iherefere it is net ee _*€§;e:i:VfgjE1--A"'e£i:§':e:' ihe {ieiems has bfififi miséed er' éemfaefi VT '_e"ppeV:*me.iE}2' ete.
21
22. In support of submissien that representatien ef the detenu has received effective censideration by the State Government, reliance is pieced on the deeisien of the Supreme Ceurt in the case of 'K M ABDULLA B L ABDUL KI-IADER vs. UNION op INDIA _ reported in [1991] 1 SCC 476, partjet;1arly"--," '* reading as under:
"19. There is no consttiuttgnal "mandate Clause [5] of Article 22, m"w:f1t.less 'e._r_tyes-tattttorg requirement to consider the__'tepr'esentatt<3r; before confirming the order" de'tenttet1.V"A_s iongitaws the government LUifhGtt--ii* deliig ""-ftgoftsiders the representation with an 'ttnb.icised:"m£fl§t__tE1ere is no basis for c:0:1elud'£z'tg"V.V:thCtt,?>._the absence of independent 'er;tz.sirieratio3'i the' 'obvious result If the represerttdfien " is hot --C0rftsidered befere the conftrmatien-::__'q.f d"ete_fttftOI1:.""-At'Iitdeed, there is no justifzlcattott ._j'cJr. imposing this restriction en the . pezgvertdqf the gaeert;.:Ttent. As ebserved eariier, the 'gve-§;erttmeet's eortsttderatton of the represerttatton is ' :jerva.di_i;fte:je§:t pL£I'p0S€§ nameiy, ts find out whether the €ie'te§tttt}rg,V.%;s in eenfsrmity with the peteer under "t':§*tet' Eat's;'--"sj---- 'fEte2"e rteefi net be e, seeakitzg erder in d£spest::§f'ej's:,:ch represerttatten. 'E'?"zere is ates as V fatittretejjtssttee by the order' net Eeieg 9; speaking n e;;'de§:=---- AS that is tteeessary is that tftere sfwttld fie * Area: eflfi pE"'::'駀§" eenstderetzietz ey the geeemmeet, E'te.:§s'~;_sVt;1i*;::331tteé that whet; enee regresentatien is §jC§:}E§§»§.€£4€&§ Vt adktering and ebservéng the safeguatfi and naming 3 fiteste should be read into this aspect etc. V 22
23. Re£i_aI1<::e is also placed on the éecisien of the S vu3;$.feme Court in the case of 'D M NAGARAJA GOVERNIIENT 01:' KARNATAKZA AND oTrLE;2S?_f J:_'n 'A 2011 [6] SUPREME 538 and _.:;§art:;;£,;1,a;{ observations made in parag:*'a}3.h~15A_V_df thié ' J':*gc1g_IT§r1eVr1*:V.:V'L» reading as under:
........ .. In other u:Q;ri£s, 7_the.(":o~-zfr':p1éte_nt authority can consider the représé;'r;iCat,i.{§r: or_1'i§,-,rV"¢:yi«;>.r the order of COf1_f.TTI"l£ltiO)f'l_ and Qs..such--.t'};.e ;:?0rzté5'.rl_1tit)ns raised by the appellant _:;;"" ..th<:3'z'eV 'u}:::s delay in Consideratiéjn i1;"basVe'Zess and ifc;bIé":i'é be rejected. "
g\;.\ and subm:iiémfhaf:.iv5.i_n 'C336 the State Government which is 3:118""ccampé§:e1?1'EVévatfiizpfity having cansidemé the repres€m';a:i0§;.__'8;11VdVV}:a§ri§1g.A fi:}ected it immediately aftar the repmft was ::e::eiv€::1'_Vff0zn_ éihe Adviwry Beard, the rejection 0f 1-f.rép:*e$éa;.iaiEian"A' fidéWS'%i:ate Gmmrnmemt 9:: 39.2911 is C:m;'s§{i{€3;':1f£i0:é:%.,¥.§?g?i;7§%;e';':.,z':: any urzfiufi fieiajy' arzfi at 35:}? rate <..___gaéisfizfifgg éiéépreagian 'shaéi afi'"0:°& hm {he eagfiasé Q§.?pG§'€E,é§ii€y"'VQjK.féakifig a repregeniaééarz a§a%i::3:"' file Graig?" as E:
if'_:j*€§§:::fsL_in ";;5{rii¢E€ 22%} 9f {ha Cgnsfimtien of indie. and .... % 23 therefmte no exception can be taken fer Vitiating thfi order for not considering the representation.
24. It is also submitted that technicalities assuming fihere is some delay or lashes shouid not weigh with the examining the questicm of adherence to the ' Act by placing reliance on the decisignrsf 'A V' in the case of 'UNION OF INDIA AN15 GHOSHAL [SMT] AND ANOTIiEI§f'._>re1§.é>rt¢c{--,VA£:;f;_:A 10" A T' SCC .97.
'f\ N 1 5 § 3, 5% /-
gj«gm.$«.§_,,,»»'
25. Reiiarzce is also p1ac2»d._Qn'V--t1f;:§; of the E21???' Bench of E1': the case sf 'LAWRENCE JoAcrHgs4.1_oSis:*P14: n'.*sdU.ZA vs. THE STATE 05* BOMBAY' 532 with particular reference to para§raph--3 Sf this Jafigmerzi: which V' V ' réaésg A38! " x "7'§{ issérongiy urged éhai' the Gfdéf <33? éeieniéen was V Siade {i}i"i§"iQ§,i§I any reai ggpizlcaiian sf mézaé by Eifie Vcieéaining azséizarity, tfzaf: {he azzifzarétg &€i€d ?F':€?"€§§ EQE: the insmnce of {he paiiée 2,9310 were in Eeague with the Sean Acézbn Cammiézee arfi that $319 pairice procured the deienfiierz €}I'd€3F' for the purpose of suppressing the freedom 9f the appeilant, E0 24 ventilate his point of view on the Gear: poiitics and to take up professionally the cause {if persons in the position of Carlos.
XXX' X'XXX We are unable to imply any such ebligcitio.ri«._ under Article 22[5,l and [61 The necessity f<_:j:""'s«.£;::.7rt_:' ;_. a corrununicaiion would arise only ij" the-'..deie:1u;"'l feeling the grounds to be vague, .~as3t;.:--:, "fer. V particulars. An obligation to--V"Ce-mmtinieatev]_the--[} L"
decision not to disclose facts c0}fisz1:Z=erea:i'prejiidieié1l___ ; T. to public interest may well be V'£m;t}--lied irtsueh. situation. But in the absence of mg sizcE1V"r'eq.r,iestV§ by the detenu, the non *e;§'mmunic.<fitien.:"_: 0]": the decision cannot be held to 'have hampered E his constitutional right pf repfreseriit:.ti0n £:irLc;t" an obligation to cornrr1uni£:a.i'e_ C31;CL{1?;ltZ'.fv~ implied in these Circurnsiances." * "
to submit that -~ sought for particulars and the documeriis_4 "if V'was;_"..'ss0 keen on making effective ;r.epresei:5i:::atis5-s. anfl i:::,,iE1ev absence sf any such reqiiesi and d7<i~:teej;i" ..hax{i:1g'«.tVAe;l::eady been furnishefi the reiied user; dseumeizlist itiéjetéiilst be said: any safeguarii ef the detest: is vieietied. it ., c xiili'v."t,Ahe ezeiie sf the gfreunds raises in tile eeiiiisii see _iiie eésufitei' filed by respetidenis and sifieméssien made at V A the Earl the questions that arises fer our corisideretien is, 25 la} As to whether the oréer of detention is x?'itiaté;§ii»T.by relevant material being not placed before authority'?
[b] Whether the detenu had bee};
adequate epportunity V ' u"---- " éffe§tive representation at the ¢ar1i<j::s't"?'- 2 [(3] W'1'1ether the. repres:§1§tatiQ11_'feceived dfie C0nsiderati(}:1?gf° . "
27. On t}§.;éVVVéounter filed on behalf of the resp0n€i@fit'3 is '$:.1%§f:t..»?{:§»S..::"jfjt3«whether the arder of acquittai in eightAV--crimiiiaE»V cases."-rrientioned in the grounds were '7é;1rg2;i3.a;I:>f'Ee:.05f*f{;t;§ is c0 f:é_picu0usE:; affiseni and; it is moi SO de 73;§t:V3gJ§.%:E;, T{§§}€VMVf2:zé;y G1" the Gihfif, EVE}: Endireshg learneé A"""{%c;£rerf3;{::e:::' "§?T:éea &e:' submiiieé at the Bar' {hat the-S6 or<:ie:°$ AA :10': Z axééziiabie ané hag :19: 'awn piaceé 'mefare the a2;;:ihQ:*ii§,n This is :19? fiigggzisfi hy fix'?/$3 Eiiran S VT & Chandrashekara K. iearned cmzngei far ihe 9» fgététéaner and ii is an the other hanfi seught to be mafia use 5' 26 of by pointing out that the orders were Very relevant materiai which ought to have been placed before the detaining authority, partieuiariy, for the reason that the detegining authority has heavily relied upon the outcome of the. acquittal.
28. It is also likewise conceded that"ev--e.n it and bail orders had not been p1aoeEiV_'oefore authority. While the rneteriai vehast the it detaining authority andrthe1"efoi'e-nt'hei"e. is iefbeohittely no possibility or requirement authority providing iioeuixzenvtsi'-ash relied upon, narration of the grounds veryieieariii that the detaining authority §_:e;a_s awe;-se of the out(:_o:ne of the above oriniinai cases and has iieied 3, ground to indicate that the oetemi had It"i,,,,/Irfixfiii.'iifi'£'{_i"ti}t$L5:}.7i§:'j$i5i:.VVt3I°§I'}."l3§"1"};8.§ activities over 3; periozi of time. _'fl'..A_?.;Iu,i}:ewiee; 'eeii orders are aieo nientionefi in the grounds enfi that the éetem}; Wee znieneing er ehtteing V' eonditions. Having regero to the ohjeet of the enaetrnent, while these instances and deveioerneets have )"WM,.»,.
2?
clefiniteiy 3, nexus t0 the object of passing an Order of preventive detention under the provisions of the Act, they eenstttute vital materia} and the feet that the very orders were not before the authority definiteiy leaves a queeti.Qn mark as t0 'Wh€th€I' the manner of passing the Gr-ale? the realm of speeulatien as ta what could have.VE1etf§';;e1;i:ed_ if was placed before the detaining reievant material for passing an 01-'e1.er efA.:;'1'e?tet1ti;§t;.'VV::. t V
29. W'hiie the expianation Vcrdtgrgt efere neat avaflalgfe as they were deetfi)yAec§t coert perhaps couici ha.ve._Abeeztetvefiii':'e%§p}ei'1te;ti0nfor not placing the erder, but if the otfiets the possibility ef the Very"
vvgufigmetgéttthe 'eréerrs centeining Judgments being net aceeptabie, mere preximate imgaet tt1atA.t.tEiatVte€'E:§:_ state ineiéerit and stale matetieé if it is toe.»rem:ete eeimt at time.
ae it fiaeyt we fiefi that the eaeie fer yeeetng en V" et preverztive fletentien. being the euteeme ef the V""A.._ef"imina£ case in which the determ ?§8.d been imreived and €.§;\_ 28 figured as an accused and the detaining authority opining that the ordinaxy Iaw of the iand was net adequate in preventing the datenu from indulging in such acts again and again, the detaining authority should have been privy. very material 1.6.. orders and not placing su_::;i1 ~ before: the detaining authority definitcly yitiatéé,' 5i'd€;r csf K' detentien.
31. Though Mr. Kiran S Java£i..__.1eafa1fiéi We petitioner has very strongly contr.*f;:tid.§jd--.vthat'tt1A.t€:ndeténu was not made aware of his tA0"--_:11:33;iv:;e""::¢p:fe5entation to the detaining Vétuthoritj};':'pt§ttti:fui_é1;f1y,' for consideration of such representatiefi._du.rthg V'wI*1i{u_§.i'1 peried when the detaining vg1;th0r§tj§::hv3;& sucti '§tZ?,.V._"srj'_€jI'v and in this Case between 53,261}; t7c; }5{'E'..2G~-v1_};3. reading at {ha communicatien in the It"t.___gmuf1zfiS'=in Vthi.'?js:_ fiégagd while it reveais that the éetemz can V%'>.._;"na%.§e a 'f::'p:r§séntati0r; $20' the éataintng autharétyg it ES Griijgr Eattaii f35e'?;;:t&;:::{:& wtticii E3 ab_'§€{:te& ta 3:: ffiufié fatzét with *3}; V' Kiifan S Javaiég Eearned Caunsei for the fifiiiiifififif, 29
32. While this sentence is quite cagsable of being misunderstood and can aiso give an impression that the detaining authcsrity is not considering any representa"tit§'11.'by the detenu, if read in eenjunetien with the earlief' se::ite'Iiee';= V' if the two se1'1tenc.es are read disjointiyz' »:';1: 'égiye vsitjteh 2 an impression. Whiie the law is very"e.1e§.f ._ authority has the power to c0fisieie:% the 1"epreAsentettii3r1'V:and 'V revoke the same, we are... sf t1"1e~.'§)pif1iQn that is net necessary to examine this fufth¢¥;,h this petition for mere than 0I"_1,€l1fi€_£lSOfi', I the detenu did make a there is no grouné urged regaiding Vde'}a:y' hiL:1.Tee:c:tsiri'eratien of the representatien and the present"d_etenti0i: sfder as we have indicated above *Qts.feAz1n?C%- fa"{2'i't with an ether grounds and therefere we Wstzid rs;,tf:..er:*..£efa;*»<eV"--t}1':sV'x:§:~estien_ seen te he examined in a prefier Ahflcsase if the issage' reaiiy arises fer examinstient However; ear:
--«A.ZAj,"%f;;=:_eVV"f%.1':S;*E Questiene we answer the same that the fieteetieh :§'f£°$'€*§'f'_V azitiateé fer est piseing sit reievsnt rssteriaé Esefere VT .th'e-detaifiitig authority.
30
33. In the View that we have taken abeve and with the representation having been considereci by the ve State Gevemment and rejected on 3.9.2011? We do safeguard given te the detenu for making__ e'.n _ representation in terms ofArtie1e 22$] efiiéthve "
India is denied or deprived fmzf the'-A_rees0nV.7ef. 'ate1a§; "in'"g consideration of representation, i3a,1_t'eI1 'die. firsfit pfieint, the point is answered in favo'e.r"fef the pettitiefzer and against the respondents.
34. The third \:§f_hetIte:'------tt1e representation has received :d'ueV"eeneide'1*atie:1'which is forming part of question No.[tb.}.¢._A\ 'i?5féx'}f1_evV'.je" efieady indicated that it has so _reeeiveVeE-3'.:.a:f£Ci on Athiee ____ gueetierx, the erder éeee net get eif:ietVee,..V "
35, '-'A?§';;:e e2*fi£"--petitien ie eflewefit egeeegeeg detenttee bearing §'§e.€R§*E§%E gem gee ; Vdtfiéaii-ted 533281 1 peeeed by the first reegeadent [eepy at V' .Aj;:eeg:1:res «- A 8: B te the writ petition} and approved by the 31 second respondent by Order §'§O.f""I:{) 824 SST 2011 dated 18.7.2011 and further confirmed; by order bearing No. OE 324 SST 2011 dated 17.9.2011 [copy at Anne:><:ure--E to the writ petition] are quashed by issue csf a writ of certi01j21ri:..._:'T~.._
37. We direct the dete:I1u ---- Palani, son of * set at liberty forthwith if not required_ir1wa1f1y
38. Registry is directed '£0 c0mrr£;:n'iQ 3§t€ fi"1_§é -.Qpei'§(tix}e~.' portion of this order to they r<~,.*S;:1.01*1cViAé1*f;tVV"~ g§'V"Séflior Superintendent, Central 1i?:'2'.$§';0r1,éB'2~3;11.§ja_1'<VV3Ti*£_:., foffhvaitii.