9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Challenge to legality of detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985. Interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the right to make representation in detention cases. Application of the principle of res judicata in successive habeas corpus petitions. Interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution: The appellant challenged the legality of the detention of his brother under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, alleging non-compliance with the procedure under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detaining authority was accused of not providing the detenu with the opportunity to make a representation, thus violating the detenu's rights. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that fresh grounds needed to be involved in successive writ petitions challenging detention. The appellant argued that successive habeas corpus petitions can be filed, citing previous decisions. The respondents contended that since no new grounds were raised in the second writ petition, its maintainability was in question. Application of Res Judicata in Habeas Corpus Petitions: The Supreme Court examined the question of res judicata in habeas corpus petitions based on previous cases. It was established that the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata applies to petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution when a similar petition under Article 226 has been decided by a High Court and not challenged further. However, this principle does not apply to a writ of habeas corpus seeking liberty. The Court emphasized that decisions by competent courts are binding unless modified or reversed through legal procedures. The doctrine of constructive res judicata is limited to civil actions and does not bar subsequent habeas corpus petitions on fresh grounds. The Court highlighted that the substance, not the form, of the challenge is crucial, and minor changes do not constitute new grounds. Conclusion: The appeal challenging the detention under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act was disposed of based on the interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the application of res judicata in habeas corpus petitions. The Court clarified the principles governing successive petitions and emphasized the importance of finality in legal decisions while allowing for new grounds to be raised in habeas corpus petitions.
|
