Karnataka High Court
Amreen vs Commissioner Of Police, Bengaluru on 23 October, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WP(HC) NO. 87/2025
BETWEEN:
AMREEN
W/O CHANDU @ CHANDPASHA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT NO.13/8, 8TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
VALMIKI NAGAR, VTC, BANGALORE
SOUTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
SAMPANGI NAGAR, KARNATAKA-560 001
Digitally signed by (REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO
K S RENUKAMBA GOVERNMENT POLICE SERVICES
Location: High HOME DEPARTMENT)
Court of Karnataka
3. CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA
BENGALURU ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS DECLARING THE DETENTION OF SYED CHANDPASHA @
CHAND PASHA @ CHANU BA @ CHAND S/O SYED AKMAL PASHA
(UTP 12227/2024 IS ILLEGAL AND SET HIM AT LIBERTY FORTHWITH
AFTER QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING REFERENCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
NO.04/BCP/CRM/PIT-NDPS/DTN/2024 DATED 27.12.2024
(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 3(1)
OF THE PIT NDPS ACT AND ORDER BEARING REFERENCE HD 1 PND
2025 (E) (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER
SECTION 9(f) OF PIT NDPS ACT.
THIS WP(HC) HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
23.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS
DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CORAM: AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL)
This petition is filed seeking quashing of Annexure-A
dated 27.12.2024 the grounds of detention order passed by
respondent No.1 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1988 ('the Act' for short) and Annexure-B the order dated
20.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 9(f) of
the Act.
2. The petitioner was/is charge sheeted, tried/being
tried in all 12 cases for the offences punishable under NDPS
Act, the particulars of which are as follows:
Name of Police
Sl. Sections
Station Crime No. Date of Case Status
No. Invoked
offence
Acquitted in C.C.
1 Chamarajapete 307/2015 21.10.2015 20(b) NDPS Act No.219/2017 on
12.09.2019
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
Pending trial in
C.C.No.8835/2017
2 Chamarajapete 141/2016 18.07.2016 20(b) NDPS Act
(Bail granted on
03.10.2016)
Acquitted on C.C.
3 Chamarajapete 149/2018 11.07.2018 20(b) NDPS Act No.13407/2018 on
08.12.2023
Pending trial in C.C.
Kempegowda No.1252/2021
4 80/2020 06.10.2020 20(b) NDPS Act
Nagara (Bail granted on
07.11.2020)
Pending trial in Spl. C.C.
No.905/2022
5 Chamarajapete 102/2020 05.09.2020 20(b) NDPS Act
(Bail granted on
07.11.2020)
Pending trial in Spl.C.C.
No.591/2023
6 Byatarayanapura 317/2021 29.11.2021 20(b) NDPS Act
(Bail granted on
07.06.2023)
Pending trial in Spl. C.C.
No.1984/2022
Annapoorneshwari (Anticipatory Bail
7 13/2022 11.02.2022 20(b) NDPS Act
Nagara granted in
Crl.P.No.1587/ 2022
on 23.02.2022)
Pending trial in C.C.
Kempegowda 20(b)(ii)(B), 27A No.930/2022 (Bail
8 17/2022 04.02.2022
Nagara NDPS Act granted on
07.06.2022)
Pending trial in C.C.
Annapoorneshwari No.2222/2022
9 58/2022 26.02.2022 20(b) NDPS Act
Nagara (Bail granted on
07.06.2022)
Pending trial in Spl.C.C.
No.71/2024
10 Chamarajapete 104/2023 22.06.2023 20(b) NDPS Act (Bail granted in
Crl.Misc.No.6933/202
3 on 01.08.2023)
Pending trial in Spl.C.C.
No.2374/2023
11 Byatarayanapura 156/2023 07.06.2023 20(b) NDPS Act (Bail granted in
Crl.P.No.6259/2023
on 13.07.2023)
Pending trial in C.C.
No.21573/2024
12 Chamarajapete 30/2024 17.02.2024 20(b) NDPS Act
(Bail granted on
24.02.2024)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
3. Police Inspector of Chamarajpet Police Station
through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chickpete Sub
Division and Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Division,
Bengaluru recommended seeking detention of the petitioner
under the Act submitted the reports along with other records.
4. Based on that, respondent No.1 acting under
Section 3(1) of the Act passed the detention order on the
ground that since 2015 the petitioner is indulging in illicit
trafficking of narcotic and psychotropic substances, procuring
the same from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, he has high
potentiality and propensity to indulge into such activities in an
organized manner conspiring with his associates, his activities
are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and
welfare of the youth and students. It is further stated that
violating the bail orders, he is indulging in illicit trafficking of
ganja and narcotics, the actions taken against him under the
relevant general laws are found inadequate to deter him,
therefore to prevent him from such activities, it is necessary to
detain him under Section 3(1) of the Act. Thus passed the
detention order based on Annexure-A.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
5. On passing such order, respondent No.2 referred
the matter to the Advisory Board under Section 9 (b) of the Act
seeking its opinion/report as required under Article 22(4)(a) of
the Constitution of India. The petitioner made his
representation before the Advisory Board. On receipt of the
report of the Advisory Board, respondent No.2 confirming the
order of detention, passed order Annexure-B under Section 9(f)
of the Act and directed that he be detained for a period of one
year from the date of detention i.e. 30.12.2024.
6. Though in the writ petition, several grounds are
urged, Sri Rohan Veeranna Tigadi, learned Counsel for the
petitioner restricted his challenge to Annexures-A & B to the
following grounds:
(A) Respondent No.2 while passing order Annexure-B
has not considered his representation dated 08.02.2025
independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board which is
violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
(B) Annexure-B/confirmation order does not apprise the
petitioner/detenue of his right to make representation to the
Central Government against such order, thereby the order is
vitiated.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
1
(i) Gracy v. State of Kerala
(ii) Jayamma v. Commissioner of Bangaluru2
(iii) Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India3
8. Per contra, Sri Thejesh P, learned HCGP submits
that while passing order/Annexure-B, respondent No.2 has
considered all materials including the representation of the
petitioner. He further submits that the guidelines issued do not
curtail the provisions of the statute, therefore, the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court relied upon by the
petitioner's counsel are not applicable.
9. In support of his submissions, learned HCGP for the
respondents relied on the following judgments:
(i) Union of India vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad4
(ii) Mrs.Khatejutal Najma v. State of Karnataka & ors5
(iii) Roopa v State of Karnataka6
1
(1991)2 SCC 1
2
ILR 2019 Kar 1543
3
(1995)4 SCC 51
4
(2019)20 SCC 609
5
WPHC No.110/2021 DD 23.12.2021 (DB)
6
WPHC NO.37/2025 D.D.26.06.2025 (DB)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
10. In the light of submissions of both side, the
questions that arise for consideration are:
i) Whether the order/Annexure-B is vitiated for non-
consideration of representation of the petitioner?
ii) Whether detention is vitiated for not apprising the
petitioner of his right to make representation to the
Central Government?
Reg. Consideration of representation of the petitioner while
passing order/Annexure-B:
11. Admittedly, first respondent passed the detention
order exercising the power under Section 3(1) of the Act on the
ground that the petitioner is habitually committing the offences
under the NDPS Act which are detrimental to the public order.
Annexure-B/confirmation order is passed by respondent No.2
exercising the power under Section 9(f) of the Act. Annexure-A
is the grounds of detention order passed by the first
respondent and not the order itself. There is also no dispute
that said detention order was referred to Advisory Board as
required under Section 9(b) of the Act and the Board in its
report opined that detention order was justifiable.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
12. The grievance of the petitioner was only regarding
the validity of Annexure-B/confirmation order on the ground of
non-consideration of his representation. The power and duties
of respondent No.2 while passing the confirmation order are
carved out in Section 9(f) of the Act as follows:
"9. Advisory Boards.-For the purposes of sub-clause (a)
of clause (4) and sub-clause (c) of clause (7) of article 22
of the Constitution,-
(a) XXX
(b) XXX
(c) XXX
(d) XXX
(e) XXX
(f) in every case where the Advisory Board has reported
that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the
detention of a person, the appropriate Government may
confirm the detention order and continue the detention of
the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit and
in every case where the Advisory Board has reported that
there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention
of the person concerned, the appropriate Government
shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to
be released forthwith."
13. Reading of the above provision shows that the
power of the Government to confirm the detention order is
independent of the opinion of the Advisory Board. As the word
"may" is employed in Section 9(f) of the Act, even if the
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
Advisory Board found sufficient cause for the detention, the
Government has power to take a different view. Only in case if
the Advisory Board finds no sufficient cause for detention, the
Government is bound to revoke such order as the word "shall"
is employed.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 6, 8 and 9 of the
judgment in Gracy's case referred to supra, while concluding
that the right of the detenue to have his representation
considered is independent of consideration of the same by the
Advisory Board, has held as follows:
"6. It is thus clear that the obligation of the
government to consider the representation is different
and in addition to the obligation of the Board to consider
it at the time of hearing the reference before giving its
opinion to the government. Consideration of the
representation by the government has to be
uninfluenced by the view of the Advisory Board. In
short, the detenu's right to have the representation
considered by the government under Article 22(5) is
independent of the consideration of the detenu's case
and his representation by the Advisory Board. This
position in law is also not disputed before us.
7. XXX
8. It is undisputed that if there be only one
representation by the detenu addressed to the detaining
authority, the obligation arises under Article 22(5) of its
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
consideration by the detaining authority independent of
the opinion of the Advisory Board in addition to its
consideration by the Advisory Board while giving its
opinion. In other words, one representation of the
detenu addressed only to the Central Government and
not also to the Advisory Board does not dispense with
the requirement of its consideration also by the Advisory
Board. The question, therefore, is: Whether one of the
requirements of consideration by government is
dispensed with when the detenu's representation
instead of being addressed to the government or also to
the government is addressed only to the Advisory Board
and submitted to the Advisory Board instead of the
government? On principle, we find it difficult to uphold
the learned Solicitor General's contention which would
reduce the duty of the detaining authority from one of
substance to mere form. The nature of duty imposed on
the detaining authority under Article 22(5) in the
context of the extraordinary power of preventive
detention is sufficient to indicate that strict compliance
is necessary to justify interference with personal liberty.
It is more so since the liberty involved is of a person in
detention and not of a free agent. Article 22(5) casts an
important duty on the detaining authority to
communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu at
the earliest to afford him the earliest opportunity of
making a representation against the detention order
which implies the duty to consider and decide the
representation when made, as soon as possible. Article
22(5) speaks of the detenu's 'representation against the
order', and imposes the obligation on the detaining
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
authority. Thus, any representation of the detenu
against the order of his detention has to be considered
and decided by the detaining authority, the
requirement of its separate consideration by the
Advisory Board being an additional requirement implied
by reading together clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22,
even though express mention in Article 22(5) is only of
the detaining authority. Moreover, the order of
detention is by the detaining authority and so also the
order of its revocation if the representation is accepted,
the Advisory Board's role being merely advisory in
nature without the power to make any order itself. It is
not as if there are two separate and distinct provisions
for representation to two different authorities viz. the
detaining authority and the Advisory Board, both having
independent power to act on its own.
9. It being settled that the aforesaid dual obligation of
consideration of the detenu's representation by the
Advisory Board and independently by the detaining
authority flows from Article 22(5) when only one
representation is made addressed to the detaining
authority, there is no reason to hold that the detaining
authority is relieved of this obligation merely because
the representation is addressed to the Advisory Board
instead of the detaining authority and submitted to the
Advisory Board during pendency of the reference before
it. It is difficult to spell out such an inference from the
contents of Article 22(5) in support of the contention of
the learned Solicitor General. The contents of Article
22(5) as well as the nature of duty imposed thereby on
the detaining authority support the view that so long as
there is a representation made by the detenu against
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
the order of detention, the aforesaid dual obligation
under Article 22(5) arises irrespective of the fact
whether the representation is addressed to the
detaining authority or to the Advisory Board or to both.
The mode of address is only a matter of form which
cannot whittle down the requirement of the
constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) enacted as one
of the safeguards provided to the detenu in case of
preventive detention."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. From the above judgment, it becomes clear that
irrespective of Advisory Board considering the representation of
the detenue, respondent No.2 while passing the confirmation
order/Annexure-B was bound to independently consider the
same. Further the coordinate bench of this Court in para 49 of
the judgment in Jayamma's case referred to supra has laid
down the guidelines for the Government/detaining authorities
in preventive detention proceedings. Para 49(7) of the
guidelines reads as follows:
"49(7) If any representation is submitted by the detenu
before the Detaining Authority, addressing the same to the
Detaining Authority, government, or to Advisory Board,
irrespective of the fact that, to whom it is addressed, the
same shall be as early as possible considered by the
appropriate Government, before sending the papers to the
Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government revokes
the detention order and directs release of the detenu,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
there arises no question of sending the case papers to the
Advisory Board."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. In Annexure-B absolutely there is no reference to
the representation of the petitioner leave alone the
independent consideration of same. To verify if respondent
No.2 has considered the same in the proceedings while passing
the order, the records of the proceedings were secured. Those
proceedings show that based on the Advisory Board's report,
draft of Annexure-B was placed before the competent authority
and that was approved as it is. There is not even a whisper at
least in the proceedings' sheet that respondent No.2 perused or
examined the representation. Thus there is no independent
consideration of the representation as required under Section
9(f) of the Act and larger bench judgment in Gracy's case
referred to supra. Hence the order is violative of Article 22(5)
of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down in
the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court.
17. Perusal of the judgment in Dimple Happy Dhakad's
case referred to supra shows that the issue raised in the said
case was regarding noncompliance of the administrative
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
guidelines, therefore it was held that non-compliance of such
order does not amount to violation of the provisions of a
statute and that does not curtail the provisions of any statute.
Since Section 9(f) of the Act requires the Government to
consider the representation independently, the judgment in
Dimple's case is not applicable.
18. Reading of para 10 of the judgment of the
coordinate Bench of this Court in Mrs.Khatejutal Najma's case
referred to supra shows that, in that case it was held that the
representation of the detenue were considered by the State
Government. But, in this case, as noticed above, the
representation of the detenue was not considered. Hence, the
said judgment does not advance the case of the respondents.
Further in para 8 of the said judgment, para 20 of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayanarayan Sukul
vs State West Bengal [(1970)1 SCC 219] is extracted which
reads as follows:
"8. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court
'JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL',
(1970) 1 SCC 219 laid down four principles, governing
the right of consideration of representation of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
detenue in para 20 of the judgment, which reads as
under:
First, the appropriate authority is bound to give an
opportunity to the detenue to make a representation and
to consider the representation of the detenue as early as
possible. Secondly, the consideration of the
representation of the detenue by the appropriate
authority is entirely independent of any action by
the Advisory Board including the consideration of
the representation of the detenue by the Advisory
Board. Thirdly, there should not be any delay in the
matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and fast
rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by
the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to
be remembered that the government has to be vigilant
in the governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raises
a correlative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate
government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on
the representation before sending the case along with
the detenue's representation to the Advisory Board. If
the appropriate Government will release the detenue the
government will not send the matter to the Advisory
Board. If, however, the government will not release the
detenue the government will send the case along with
the detenue's representation to the Advisory Board. If
thereafter, the Advisory Board will express an opinion in
favour of the release of the detenue the government will
release the detenue. If the Advisory Board will
express any opinion against the release of the
detenue the government may still exercise the
power to release the detenue."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Thus it becomes clear that respondent No.2 is
bound to consider the representation of the detenue entirely
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
independent of the consideration of the same by the Advisory
Board. On that count also, the said judgment is of no
assistance to the respondents. In Roopa's case referred to
supra relied on by learned HCGP, this Court found that
statutory requirement was complied. Therefore, the said
judgment cannot be justifiably applied to the facts of the
present case. Hence the contention of the petitioner that his
representation was not independently considered by
respondent No.2, thereby Annexure-B is vitiated, sustains.
Reg. Annexure-B not apprising the petitioner of his right to
make representation.
20. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
detaining authority should have apprised him to make
representation to the Central Government seeking revocation of
the same under Section 12 of the Act.
21. There is no dispute that Section 3(2) of the Act
requires the State Government to report to the Central
Government about the detention order within 10 days of
passing of such order. Section 12(1)(b) of the Act confers
powers on the Central Government to revoke or modify the
order passed by a State Government. Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India requires the authority making the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
detention order to communicate the detenue the grounds of
order and afford him earliest opportunity of making
representation against the order.
22. No doubt Article 22(5) of the Constitution or
Section 9(f) or 12(1)(a) of the Act do not expressly speak
about the right of the detenue of being apprised of his right of
making representation to the Central Government in the
matter. If there was no need to reconsider the order passed by
the State Government or the authority, Section 12 of the Act
empowering the Central Government would not have been
carved out in the Act by the legislature. The detenue is the
main affected person in the matter. Only if the detenue is
apprised by State Government making of such a report to the
Central Government, he gets an opportunity seeking
revocation of the same under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act.
Otherwise his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution to make representation gets affected. This view of
ours gets support from para 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar's case referred to supra
which reads as follows:
"Article 22(5) must, therefore be construed to mean that
the person detained has a right to make a representation
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
against the order of detention which can be made not
only to the Advisory Board but also to the detaining
authority i.e., the authority that has made the order of
detention or the order for continuance of such detention,
which is competent to give immediate relief by revoking
the said order as well as to any other authority which is
competent under law to the revoke the order for
detention and thereby give relief to the person detained.
The right to make representation carries within it a
corresponding obligation on the authority making the
order of detention to inform the person detained of his
right to make a representation against the order of
detention to the authorities who are required to consider
such a representation."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. For the aforesaid reasons the order Annexure-B
stands vitiated on both the grounds. Hence liable to be
quashed. Annexure-A is only the grounds of detention and not
even detention order referred to in Annexure-B passed by the
first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioner
ought to have sought quashing of the said order which he has
failed to do for the reasons best known to him. On quashing of
Annexure-B, the same loses its existence, thus stands short of
the requirement of Section 3(2) of the Act submitting the same
to the Central Government within 10 days. Thereby the
detention order dated 27.12.2024 referred to in Annexure-B
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:41763-DB
WPHC No.87/2025
HC-KAR
loses its existence. Hence Annexure-A becomes
inconsequential. The allegations against the petitioner in
Annexure-B about the criminal cases pending against him are
matter of trial in those cases. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) The order Annexure-B dated 20.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 and consequentially the detention order dated 27.12.2024 in No.04/BCP/PIT-NDPS/DTN/2024 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.
ii) Petition is disposed of accordingly.
iii) Office is directed to communicate the operative portion of the order to respondent No.3. Original records of the proceedings are returned to learned HCGP.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE KSR,AKC List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2