Karnataka High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under Goonda Act: “Reliance on Stale Cases and Lack of Proximate Threat to Public Order Violates Article 21”

Court’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court quashed the preventive detention order issued against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (Goonda Act). The Court ruled that:

• The detention order lacked a live and proximate link between past criminal cases and the necessity for preventive detention.
• Several of the cases relied upon by the authorities were stale or unrelated to public order.
• There was an unexplained eight-month gap between the last alleged offence and the detention order, which weakened the justification for detention.
• The detaining authority failed to establish that the petitioner misused bail after being released in previous cases.

The Court, therefore, quashed the detention order dated 24.03.2024 and the confirmation order dated 28.03.2024, directing the immediate release of the petitioner.

Facts of the Case

1. The Petitioner’s Detention:
   • The Commissioner of Police, Mysuru City (Respondent No.2) issued a preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the Goonda Act against the petitioner on 24.03.2024.
   • The State Government approved the detention order on 28.03.2024.
   • The order was passed based on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in seven criminal cases between 2017 and 2023, which authorities claimed posed a threat to public order.
2. Nature of Criminal Cases Against the Petitioner:
   • The petitioner was involved in multiple cases registered under the IPC, including Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), and 392 (robbery).
   • The detention order claimed that despite being on bail, the petitioner continued to engage in unlawful activities.
3. Petitioner’s Challenge:
   • The petitioner contested the detention, arguing that the authorities had relied on old and irrelevant cases and had failed to demonstrate any immediate need for preventive detention.
   • The detention order did not specify a clear duration of detention, violating Section 13 of the Goonda Act.
4. Review by the Advisory Board:
   • As required under Section 10 of the Goonda Act, the State Government referred the detention order to the Advisory Board.
   • The Board recommended confirming the detention.
5. Writ Petition Before the High Court:
   • The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the detention order and secure his release.

Issues Before the Court

1. Was the preventive detention order issued on 24.03.2024 legally valid under the Goonda Act?
2. Did the authorities establish a real and proximate threat to public order caused by the petitioner?
3. Was the detention order procedurally compliant with the requirements under the Goonda Act?
4. Did the detention violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Lack of Proximate Nexus Between Crimes and Detention:
   • The petitioner argued that most of the cases relied upon by the authorities were old and unrelated to public order.
   • The last case registered against the petitioner was in July 2023, while the detention order was passed in March 2024—an eight-month gap with no fresh allegations, which weakened the justification for preventive detention.
2. Reliance on Stale Cases:
   • The authorities cited cases from 2017 and 2021, which were too old to justify a current preventive detention order.
   • Two of the cases were family disputes with the petitioner’s uncle and cousin, making them inappropriate grounds for preventive detention.
3. Failure to Prove Bail Misuse:
   • The detention order claimed that the petitioner misused bail, but no specific instances were provided to show that he violated bail conditions.
   • The petitioner was granted bail in all cases, yet there was no fresh criminal activity recorded after his release.
4. Absence of Duration in the Detention Order:
   • The detention order did not specify how long the petitioner was to be detained, violating Section 13 of the Goonda Act.
5. Denial of Opportunity to Defend:
   • The petitioner contended that the detention order was passed hastily, without giving him an adequate opportunity to present his defense.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Petitioner is a Habitual Offender:
   • The State contended that the petitioner was involved in seven serious criminal cases, indicating a consistent pattern of criminal behavior.
   • The detention was necessary to maintain public order.
2. Threat to Public Order:
   • The police authorities argued that despite securing bail, the petitioner continued criminal activities, necessitating preventive action under the Goonda Act.
3. Compliance with the Goonda Act:
   • The authorities claimed they had followed all procedural requirements under the Goonda Act, including timely approval of the detention order by the State Government and review by the Advisory Board.

Analysis of the Law

1. Preventive Detention Requires a “Live and Proximate Link”:
   • Section 3 of the Goonda Act allows preventive detention only when there is a clear and immediate danger to public order.
   • The Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587 ruled that:
     • The detaining authority must establish a “live and proximate link” between the alleged crimes and the need for detention.
     • Old cases cannot be used to justify preventive detention unless there is fresh and compelling evidence of a continuing threat.
2. Reliance on Stale Cases Invalidates Detention Orders:
   • The detention order in this case relied on old and irrelevant cases, violating the principle laid down in Ameena Begum.
3. Lack of Proximate Threat to Public Order:
   • The Court found that the last crime registered against the petitioner was eight months before the detention order.
   • There was no mention of any fresh unlawful activity by the petitioner in this period.

Court’s Reasoning

1. No Justification for Preventive Detention:
   • The authorities failed to prove that the petitioner’s activities posed a real, immediate, and ongoing threat to public order.
   • The last registered crime was in July 2023, while the detention order was passed in March 2024—an eight-month delay without explanation.
2. Improper Reliance on Unrelated Cases:
   • Two cases were private disputes between the petitioner and his family members, which cannot justify preventive detention.
3. Failure to Prove Bail Misuse:
   • The authorities claimed that the petitioner misused bail, but did not provide any evidence.
4. Violation of Article 21:
   • The Court held that the detention order violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Court quashed the detention order dated 24.03.2024 and the confirmation order dated 28.03.2024, holding them to be arbitrary, procedurally defective, and unconstitutional. The petitioner was ordered to be released immediately.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Stricter Scrutiny of Preventive Detention Orders: Authorities must ensure that detention is based on recent and relevant criminal activities.
2. Protection Against Arbitrary Detention: The judgment strengthens the constitutional safeguards against preventive detention.
3. Burden of Proof on the Government: The State must provide concrete evidence of the necessity for detention, rather than relying on old cases.

Final Order:

• Writ petition allowed.
• Detention order quashed.
• Petitioner to be released immediately.

Also Read – Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict: “Extra-Judicial Confession Lacked Credibility, No Corroborative Forensic Evidence, and Contradictory Witness Testimonies Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”