The failure to provide detention materials in the language known to the detenue violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention of her husband M. Saravana under detention order in REV-CSECOPDL (PRC)/6/2023-MAGL4, dated 13.09.2023 passed by 2nd respondent- Collector & District Magistrate, Chittoor District and confirmed by the 1st respondent as per G.O.Rt. No. 2119, General Administration (SPL [LAW AND ORDER]) Department, dated 30.10.2023 and prays to direct the respondent authorities to set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

2. As per the proceedings dated 13.09.2023, the 2nd respondent passed the detention order under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (1 of 1986) [for short ‘the Act 1 of 1986’] treating the detenue as ‘Goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Act 1 of 1986 on the subjective satisfaction that the detenue is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order since he has been habitually involved in notorious criminal activities with other associates and even though a number of cases were registered against him, he did not change his attitude and increasing his activities day to day and extending them to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States. Following 5 cases in which the detenue was involved were taken as ground for ordering his detention:

In detention order as well as the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that he is a gangster involving in violent activities of attempt to murder and bodily offences by creating terror in the minds of general public and he is also an aggressive, highhanded anti-social element, chosen the path of eliminating the opponents by maintaining a criminal gang, posing himself as notorious goonda in the locality by creating terror in the minds of public. He is a habitual criminal, involved in series of offences in proximity of time, thereby causing disturbance to the public order. Hence the detention order.

3. In the writ petition and reply affidavit, the detention is challenged on two main grounds. The detenue was a Tamilian who was born and brought up in the State of Tamil Nadu and that he can speak, write and understand only in Tamil language. However, strangely the detaining authority has supplied the detention material in Telugu and English languages instead of his mother tongue Tamil and thereby detenue could not make an effective representation to the Government and the Advisory Board and