SYED M.FAZAL ALI, J. (Vacation Judge)

(1) THIS is an application by the wife of the detenu praying that the detenu be released as the order of detention passed against him is illegal. In support of the rule, Mr Ramjethmalani, learned counsel for the detenu submitted three points before me. In the first place it was argued that although the detenu had taken a specific plea in para 17 of the petition and Ground XIII that being an Arab, he did not know English yet the grounds served on the detenu were not explained to him at all in a language which he could understand. In this connection, the allegations in paragraph 17 may be extracted as follows:

THAT the detenu did not understand English nor he knows English. The grounds of detention were not explained to him nor the detention order was explained to the detenu in the language known by the detenu. The detenu can only sign paper in Arabic. He understands only Arabic.

(2) IT is clear from the averment of the detenu that he knew only Arabic and no other language. A similar averment was made in Ground XIII of the petition. This averment was sought to be controverted by the respondents in their reply in paragraph 17 where the Under-Secretary, Mr Ramanathan stated as follows:

PARA 17 is denied. It is stated that it is not correct that the detenu understands only Arabic. The detenu knows Hindi. When the case of the detenu came up before the Advisory Board on 29/02/1980, he made his submissions in Hindi and he was interrogated by the members and the Chairman of the Advisory Board in Hindi and he gave replies in Hindi, even though arrangements were made to keep an interpreter knowing Arabic.

(3) THE reply in para 17 appears to be extremely vague and totally irrelevant. When the detenu said that be did not know any language except Arabic, It was futile to contend that the grounds were explained to him in Hindi. The detenu had never pleaded that he knew English or Hindi. The basis for the averment made in the counter-affidavit was that the detenu had made his submissions in Hindi before the Advisory Board. This assertion is wholly inadmissible in evidence in absence of any evidence of any person who was actually present before the Advisory Board and saw the detenu actually making his submissions in Hindi. No such affidavit or record has been produced before me.

(4) MR Rana, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that in para 4 at page 91, it was clearly mentioned that the grounds were explained to the detenu in Hindi on 16/01/1980. Here also no details appear to have been given. It is not mentioned as to who explained the grounds to the detenu in Hindi nor was any affidavit by the person who had explained the contents of the grounds in Hindi been filed in support of this averment. Mr Rana however relied on an endorsement made in the ground which shows that some inspector had explained the ground in Hindi. Even this fact is not mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the State in this petition. In these circumstances therefore it is difficult to believe that the endorsement was made at the time when the grounds were served on the detenu.

(5) IN the case of Hadibandhu Das v. D.M.,Cuttack,it was pointed out that merely explanation of the contents of the grounds is not sufficient but the script of the grounds in the language which the detenu understands has to be furnished to the detenu. This important safeguard also does not appear to have been complied with. Unfortunately, the difficulty is that the detaining authorities do not seem to realise that orders of detention which touch the valuable rights of citizens and their liberty are matters of moment and cannot be dealt with in a casual or routine manner. The necessary safeguards laid down by this court and enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution have to be complied with however onerous and difficult the task may be. Moreover with huge resources at the com