Karnataka High Court Overturns Detention Order Citing Language Barrier Violation
The Karnataka High Court has made a significant ruling by setting aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing the critical importance of linguistic accessibility in legal proceedings. The court found that the detention was invalid because the detenue, who could read only Kannada, was supplied with documents in English, thereby infringing upon his constitutional rights.
Constitutional Mandate and Language Rights
In a landmark decision, a division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil delivered the judgment on January 20, 2026. The bench allowed a petition filed by Pavithra, the mother of the detenue, challenging the detention order issued under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The court underscored that Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that when a person is detained under preventive detention laws, the authorities must communicate the grounds of detention in a language the detenue understands and provide an opportunity for representation.
The court explicitly 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." This ruling highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that language barriers do not impede justice.
Background of the Case and Legal Arguments
The detention order dated January 31, 2025, was confirmed by the state government, leading to the detenue's incarceration in the Central Prison at Bengaluru. Advocate Suyog Herele E, representing the petitioner, presented compelling arguments:
- The detenue had been involved in 13 criminal cases but was acquitted in eight of them by the trial court.
- The detaining authority failed to consider these acquittals when passing the order.
- Documents provided were in English without Kannada translations, and some were illegible, preventing the detenue from making an effective representation.
In response, government advocate Thejesh P argued that the detention was necessary due to the detenue's alleged consistent illegal activities causing public disorder. However, the bench noted that the state failed to refute the claims regarding the language issue and incomplete consideration of acquittals.
Court's Findings and Immediate Release Order
The bench meticulously examined the evidence and found multiple flaws in the detention process:
- The documents supplied were in English, with no Kannada translation provided, violating the detenue's right to understand the charges against him.
- Only seven of the eight acquittals were considered in the detention grounds, indicating non-consideration of relevant material.
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." Consequently, the court directed the Bengaluru prison authorities to release the detenue forthwith, reinforcing the protection of fundamental rights in detention cases.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding linguistic and procedural fairness, ensuring that preventive detention orders adhere strictly to constitutional safeguards. It underscores the need for authorities to provide accessible legal materials to detainees, particularly in a multilingual country like India.
