2011 (9) TMI 993 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Detaining Authority is justified in passing the detention order dated 22.09.2010 and the High Court is right in confirming the same and dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the detention order under the Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985.
2. Validity of the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition.
3. Delay in considering the appellant's representation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Detention Order:

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the detention order dated 22.09.2010. The appellant, a habitual offender, had a long history of criminal activities, including murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, and extortion. The Detaining Authority detained him under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (the Karnataka Act) for a period of 12 months. The appellant's criminal record, spanning from 1981 to 2010, indicated that he was not amenable to ordinary legal procedures. The court emphasized that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive, aimed at stopping the individual from continuing his criminal activities. The detention order was based on a reasonable prognosis of the appellant's future behavior, considering his past conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

2. Validity of the High Court's Dismissal of the Writ Petition:

The appellant challenged the detention order before the High Court of Karnataka, arguing that there was an enormous delay in considering his representation for withdrawal of the detention order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the Detaining Authority was justified in issuing the detention order. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the Detaining Authority had meticulously considered all relevant materials and followed all statutory safeguards. The appellant's continuous criminal activities, even after being released on bail, justified the preventive detention to maintain public order. The court distinguished this case from the Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244, where the grounds for detention were less substantial and lacked detailed evidence of habitual criminality.

3. Delay in Considering the Appellant's Representation:

Although the appellant did not raise the issue of delay in his representation before the Supreme Court, the court addressed it. The detention order was passed on 22.09.2010, approved by the Government on 30.09.2010, and confirmed on 16.11.2010 after the Advisory Board's report. The appellant's representation was sent on 06.10.2010, before the confirmation order. The court referenced K.M. Abdulla Kunhi & B.L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 476, which held that there is no constitutional duty to consider a detenu's representation before confirming the detention order. Therefore, the contention of delay was deemed baseless.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Detaining Authority's decision and the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition. The appellant's habitual criminal activities and the thorough consideration of all relevant materials justified the preventive detention under the Karnataka Act. The appeal was consequently dismissed.