Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards

“All Material Relied Upon Must Be Supplied to Enable an Effective Representation” –  On 23/02/2026, the Karnataka High Court delivered a significant ruling under its writ jurisdiction, quashing a preventive detention order passed under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas (Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates) Act, 1985.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil held that non-supply of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority violated the detenue’s fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that merely furnishing the detention order and grounds of detention, without supplying the supporting material relied upon, rendered the detention unconstitutional and illegal.

The detention order dated 04.07.2025, along with its approval dated 11.07.2025 and confirmation dated 16.08.2025, was accordingly quashed, and the detenue was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

The petitioner, Raja @ Regan, aged 26 years and resident of K.G.F. Taluk, Kolar District, was detained under Section 3 of the Karnataka Goonda Act on the ground that he was a habitual offender involved in multiple criminal cases under the Indian Penal Code, the NDPS Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and related provisions.

The detention order relied upon as many as fourteen criminal cases registered between 2016 and 2025, including allegations of assault, robbery, house-breaking, attempt to murder, and offences under the NDPS Act. The Detaining Authority recorded subjective satisfaction that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and required preventive detention.

The order was approved by the State Government within twelve days and later confirmed following reference to the Advisory Board, as contemplated under Sections 10 and 11 of the Goonda Act.

Aggrieved by the detention, the detenue approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

The principal question before the Court was whether the detention order was sustainable in law, particularly in light of the procedural safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that although the detention order and grounds were served, copies of the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were not furnished. This, it was argued, deprived him of his constitutional right to make an effective representation against the detention.

The State, on the other hand, defended the detention on the ground of repeated criminal involvement and disturbance to public order, asserting that procedural requirements were duly followed.

The Bench examined the scheme of Sections 3, 8, 10, 11, and 13 of the Goonda Act. It noted that while the State has power to detain persons to prevent activities prejudicial to public order, such power is circumscribed by strict procedural safeguards. Section 8 mandates communication of grounds within five days and affording the earliest opportunity to make a representation.

However, the Court emphasized that communication of “grounds” cannot be a mere formality and must be meaningful.

Supreme Court Precedents Reaffirmed: “It Is Immaterial Whether the Detenu Already Knew the Contents”

The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India, which reiterated the constitutional imperatives flowing from Article 22(5).

Quoting M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had held:

“The right is to make an effective representation and when some documents are referred to or relied on in the grounds of detention, without copies of such documents, the grounds of detention would not be complete… If there is failure or even delay in furnishing those documents it would amount to denial of the right to make an effective representation.”

The Apex Court further clarified:

“It is immaterial whether the detenu already knew about their contents or not.”

The Karnataka High Court also referred to Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, wherein the Supreme Court observed that although preventive detention laws may curtail personal liberty, courts must ensure that such liberty “is not arbitrarily taken away even temporarily without following the procedure prescribed by law.”

The High Court underscored that preventive detention laws are “drastic in nature” and therefore demand scrupulous compliance with procedural safeguards.

Finding of the Court: Clear Violation of Articles 21 and 22(5)

Applying the settled law to the facts, the Bench found that the detenue was furnished only with the detention order and grounds of detention. The documents forming the basis of subjective satisfaction—such as FIRs, charge sheets, case records, or other relied upon materials—were not supplied.

Significantly, this fact was admitted by the respondents.

The Court held that such non-supply clearly violated the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as the detenue was deprived of the opportunity to make an effective representation.

The Bench categorically observed that the impugned detention order was passed in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 as well.

Though other grounds were raised, the Court found it unnecessary to examine them, holding that the detention was liable to be set aside solely on the ground of violation of Article 22(5).

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed:

“the impugned detention order dated 04.07.2025, the order of approval dated 11.07.2025 and the order of confirmation dated 16.08.2025.”

The respondents were directed to set the detenue at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The Registry was instructed to communicate the operative portion of the order to the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison, Mysuru, for immediate compliance. No order as to costs was made.

This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that preventive detention, though constitutionally permissible, is an exception to the cherished right of personal liberty. The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is not optional but mandatory.

By holding that non-supply of relied upon documents vitiates detention, the Court has strengthened the constitutional shield under Articles 21 and 22(5), reiterating that preventive detention laws cannot become “instruments of oppression” through procedural shortcuts.

Date of Decision: 23/02/2026