Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

"Detenue's Rights Infringed Due to Failure to Provide Relevant Documents," Rules Karnataka High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a judgment dated August 31, 2023, the High Court of Karnataka quashed detention orders, citing infringement of the detenue's rights due to procedural lapses. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements and constitutional provisions.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice Rajesh Rai K presided over the case, Writ Petition No. 201957/2023, involving Smt. Shrenika as the petitioner and the State of Karnataka among the respondents.

The court observed, "Failure to provide the detenue with relevant documents within the stipulated 21-day period infringes upon the detenue's rights to defend against illegal detention." [Para 7]

The judgment also highlighted the violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. "The sponsoring authority's failure to provide translated and legible copies of documents to the detenue withheld the detenue's right to make effective representation before the Government and Advisory Board," the court noted. [Para 22]

Discussing the role of the Advisory Board in detention cases, the court stated that the board's opinion is crucial for the continuation or revocation of detention. [Para 16]

In the final decision, the court quashed the detention orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and directed them to set the detenue at liberty. [Para 29]

Date of Decision 31st August 2023     

 SMT. SHRENIKA vs .THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Shrenika_vs_The_State_Of_Karnataka_And_Ors_on_31_August_2023_KarntHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    18 February 2026 6:55 AM
Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case
  • by sayum
    18 February 2026 6:54 AM
Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC
  • by sayum
    18 February 2026 6:54 AM
Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine
  • by sayum
    18 February 2026 6:54 AM
Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    18 February 2026 6:54 AM
Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA
  • by sayum
    18 February 2026 6:53 AM
Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case