Non-Supply of Translated and Legible Documents Vitiates Detention: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court quashed a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985, emphasizing that failure to provide translated documents and legible copies to a detenue violates fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

A division bench comprising Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil heard the writ petition filed by a relative of the detenue, challenging the preventive detention initiated by the Commissioner of Police, Hubballi-Dharwad. The court scrutinized whether the procedural safeguards were strictly followed before depriving the individual of their personal liberty.

Fundamental Right to Effective Representation

The court observed that the detenue, who had only studied up to the second standard in Kannada medium, was served with several documents in English without translations. Furthermore, several of the relied-upon documents were found to be illegible, preventing the detenue from making a meaningful challenge to his incarceration.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Therefore, non-furnishing of relied document in the language known to the detenue and submitting of illegible copies affects the right of the detenue to submit an effective representation, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India."

Tracing the legal position, the bench relied on Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra ( "1962 SCC Online 117": 1962 CaseBase(SC) 415) and The State of Manipur and Others vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan and Another to reiterate that communication of grounds in a language the detenue understands is a constitutional necessity. The bench noted that even if the State's official language is English, the information must be provided in a script and language the detenue can actually read.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order of detention dated 02.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.1, and the order dated 09.06.2025 and the confirmation order dated 18.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed.

iii. The respondents are directed to set the detenue at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases.

iv. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Dharwad, forthwith for compliance.

v. No order as to costs."

Background:

The case originated when the Commissioner of Police (Respondent No. 1) passed a detention order on June 2, 2025, against Sagar Lakkundi, classifying him as a "Goonda" under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985. The authority cited eight criminal cases registered between 2019 and 2025, involving offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including attempt to murder and assault.

The petitioner argued that the detention was based on vague and irrelevant considerations and that the procedural lapse of providing illegible and English-language documents to a Kannada-literate detenue was fatal to the order. The State contended that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities prejudiced public order and that all procedural requirements were met.

Ultimately, the High Court found that the breach of Section 8 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendered the detention illegal. As the detention was set to lapse in June 2026 and the petition was pending since January, the court allowed the petition and ordered the immediate release of the detenue.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 100481 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
Case Title: DHARMARAJ N. SATPATII VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SRI. MOT GOURISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA, ADV.
For the Respondent(s): SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 185