High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Under Goonda Act for Failure to Furnish Documents, Directs Release

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil heard a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities (Goondas) Act, 1985. The petitioners contested the detention of a detenue on grounds of being a habitual offender and engaging in activities prejudicial to public order.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order dated 04.07.2025, the approval dated 11.07.2025 and the confirmation dated 16.08.2025, holding that the procedure mandated by law was not followed and the detenue’s right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was violated. The Bench noted the settled principle that preventive detention laws may curtail personal liberty but must not become instruments of arbitrary deprivation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the concept of personal liberty and individual freedom can be curtailed by preventive detention laws, the Courts have to ensure that the right to personal liberty and individual freedom is not arbitrarily taken away even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law. It has been held that when a detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority in making such an order must be supplied to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation. In the instant case, the detenue was only furnished with the order of detention and the grounds of detention and no documents that were relied on by the Detaining Authority were furnished and the same is also admitted by the respondents, which clearly violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.” The Bench further reiterated earlier authority that “the detenu has, therefore, the right to be furnished with the grounds of detention along with the documents so referred to or relied on.”

Background The detenue, Raja alias Regan, aged about 26, was detained by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Kolar (respondent No.2) on 04.07.2025 under Section 2(g) of the Goonda Act as a habitual offender allegedly involved in offences under the IPC, the NDPS Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The order relied on multiple FIRs and crimes registered between 2016 and 2025, including offences of robbery, house trespass, theft, NDPS violations and recent charges under the BNS. The detention order was approved on 11.07.2025 and confirmed by the Home Department on 16.08.2025.

Counsel for the detenue submitted that procedural safeguards were breached: the detenue was not produced before the Advisory Board within the statutory period and, critically, was not furnished with the documents relied upon by the detaining authority, leaving him unable to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). The State contended that statutory procedure had been followed and that detention was necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to public order.

The Bench examined the Goonda Act provisions (Sections 3, 8, 10, 11 and 13) and relied on the Supreme Court’s precedents, including the decision in Jaseela Shaji and related authorities, which established that all material relied upon by the detaining authority must be supplied to the detenu to enable effective representation. Finding that only the grounds and the detention order were furnished and that the respondents admitted non-supply of relied-upon documents, the Court held the detention unlawful. The petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the Court directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if his detention was not required in any other case. The Registry was instructed to communicate the operative portion of the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Mysuru, for compliance. No costs were imposed.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.H.C. No.106/2025 Case Title: Raja alias Regan v. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri. S. Jagan Babu, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Sri. B.A. Belliappa, SPP-I with Sri. Thejesh P, HCGP