Judgment

KOSHAL, J.:- By this order we shall dispose of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 5931 and 5932 of 1980 in each of which the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the same.

2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 5931 of 1980, the petitioner is one Surjeet Singh while the other petition has been filed by a person named Kulwant Singh.

3. Each of the petitioners was detained on the 13th October, 1980 under the provisions of the National Security Ordinance which now stands replaced by the National Security Act. They were arrested on that date and on each of them a police officer served an order of detention along with the grounds on which it was based, both the documents being in English. It is the case of the State, and the same has not been controverted before us, that the police officer effecting the service of the two documents explained to the concerned detenu in Hindi what their contents were.

4. Dr. N. M. Ghatate, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the detention of the two petitioners with the contention that English was not a language which either of them understood, that this factor rendered it necessary for the grounds of detention to be served on them in Hindi which was their mother tongue and that the same having not been done, there was in law no communication of such grounds to either of them.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation in holding that the challenge to the detention is well-founded in view of the dicta of this Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra 1962 Suppl (2) SCR 918, Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, (1969) 1 SCR 227 and Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 427.

In the first of these cases an order under the Preventive Detention Act (Central. Act IV of 1950) was under challenge. The grounds of detention had been provided to the detenu in English and a request by him. for a translation of the same was turned down. The High Court was of the opinion that so long as English continued to be the official language of the State the communication of the grounds of detention in that language was enough compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. This opinion did not find favour with Sinha, C: J., who delivered the judgment of this Court and observed:

"If the detained person is conversant with the English language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the gravamen of the charge against him and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based. But to a person who is not so conversant with the English language, in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand, and in a script which he can read, if he is a literate person.

The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of movement throughout the territory of India and has laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid down in clauses (4) and (5) of Art. 22. One of those safeguards is that the detained person has the right to be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made against him, in order that he may be able to make the representation against the order of detention. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case, it has not been shown that the appellant had the opportunity, which the law contemplates in his favour of making an effective representation against his detention. On this ground alone we declare his detention illegal, and set aside the order of the High Court and the order of Detention passed against him."

In Hadibandhus case (supra) also an order under the Preventive Detention Act was impugned with the contention that the grounds of detention had not been supplied to. the detenu in a