Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Detention Order
The Karnataka Excessive Courtroom mentioned that it can’t sit as an Appellate Courtroom on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The Courtroom dismissed the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by the mom of detenue aged about 25 years, difficult the Order of detention handed by the State authorities and in search of to quash the identical.
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Ok. Manmadha Rao noticed, “In view of the foregoing dialogue, we don’t discover any causes to carry that the order of the Authorities-detention authority is against the law or opposite to regulation. We can’t sit as an Appellate Courtroom on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which isn’t permissible in regulation as held in above referred Judgments.”
Advocate V. Lakshmi Kantha Rao appeared for the Petitioner whereas HCGP Thejas P. appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The detenue being a recurring offender was concerned in severe felony instances similar to tried homicide, extortion, assault, kidnapping, risk to life, racketeering, rape, youngster sexual abuse, sale of medication since 2016 by forming a gaggle of felony associates and fascinating in unlawful actions, violating bail circumstances after being launched on bail. Being a nuisance to regulation and order, regardless of being prosecuted within the felony instances by which he was concerned, he continued to interact in unlawful actions, made a behavior of committing felony acts, and continued to commit felony acts repeatedly. An Order of arrest was issued in January this 12 months in respect of 9 instances registered towards him.
The Respondents discovered that presence of the detenue was inflicting disturbances to public order and tranquility and was changing into menace to the society. Subsequently, he was detained primarily based on the detention order handed by the Commissioner of Police. Thereafter, he submitted a illustration to the Authorities for reviewing the detention order. The mentioned illustration was rejected by the Authorities and after acquiring opinion from the Advisory Board and following the procedures below the Goondas Act, it confirmed the detention order. It ordered to detain him for a interval of 1 12 months. This was below problem earlier than the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom after listening to the contentions of the counsel, famous, “Part 12 of the Act, 1986 offers that the place the Advisory Board in its report is of the opinion that ample trigger exists warranting detention, the Authorities might affirm the detention i.e., it provides the suitable Authorities the discretion to both affirm or revoke the order of detention. However the place the Advisory Board in its report is of the pinion that no ample trigger exists for the detention of the detenue, the identical is binding on the Authorities, and the detenue is forthwith required to be launched.”
The Courtroom additional mentioned that on receipt of the opinion below Part 12 of the Act, the State Authorities has confirmed the detention order and proceed the detention of the individual on such interval, not exceeding the utmost interval of specified below Part 13 of the Act.
“Subsequently, in view of the above circumstances, the detaining authority thought-about the supplies positioned earlier than them and after subjective satisfaction of the identical handed the detention order”, it added.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the Writ Petition.
Trigger Title- Roopa v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) No.37 OF 2025)
