Premium

Karnataka HC sets aside preventive detention order as all documents supplied to detenue were not in Kannada

The Karnataka High Court held that the documents in English, which the detenue did not understand, prevented him from making an effective representation against the detention order.

3 min readBengaluruJan 28, 2026 03:05 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court directed the Bengaluru prison authorities to release the detenue forthwith. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a detention order that sent a habitual offender involved in murder and attempt to murder cases to one year in prison. The court held that the detenue could read only Kannada, but some of the documents supplied to him were in English.

A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil on January 20 allowed a petition filed by Pavithra, the mother of the detenue, and set aside the detention order passed under section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking Offenders, Slum Grabbers, and Video or Audio Pirates Act.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that when any person is detained under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The representation is to be made to the advisory board, which either confirms or rejects the detention order.

Noting that the detenue had studied only up to Class 10 and could read only Kannada, the court stated, “Admittedly, some of the documents furnished to the detenue are in English, and non-furnishing of translated copies from English to Kannada vitiates the detention order, as the detenue’s right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is infringed.”

Pavithra challenged the detention order dated January 31, 2025, which was confirmed by the state government, and since then, the detenue has been lodged in the Central Prison at Bengaluru.

Acquitted in 8 of 13 cases

Advocate Suyog Herele E, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that 13 cases were filed against the detenue, out of which he was acquitted in eight cases by the trial court. However, the detaining authority had not considered these acquittals while passing the order. Furthermore, documents were given in English without a Kannada translation, and some were totally illegible, depriving the detenue of the ability to give an effective representation.

The government advocate, Thejesh P, contended that the detention order was passed because the detenue’s consistent illegal activities were causing public disorder.

Story continues below this ad

The bench noted that the documents supplied to the detenue were in English and that no Kannada translation was provided. The court stated, “No material has been placed on record by the respondent State to refute the same.”

Additionally, the court found that the documents furnished to the detenue indicated that he had been acquitted in eight of the criminal cases registered against him, yet only seven cases were considered in the grounds of detention as having resulted in acquittal.

Thus, the court concluded, “Hence, we are of the view that the order of detention and the consequent order of confirmation suffer from non-consideration of relevant material. The impugned order of detention is passed in violation of the fundamental rights of the detenue guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the court directed the prison authorities to release him forthwith.