The central legal point established in the judgment is that the fundamental rights of the detenu, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, must be upheld, and any violation of these rights renders the detention order unsustainable in law.

Headnote:
Detention - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Section 3, 37(a), 135 of the Bombay Police Act, Arms Act - [3, 37(a), 135, 4, 25(1-b), (b), 27, 35]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner detenu challenged the detention order on the grounds of a discrepancy in the translation of his right to make a representation to the State Government, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention conveyed that the detenu was capable of making a representation, rather than having the right to do so, thus violating his fundamental right.
Issues: The main issue was the discrepancy in the translation of the detenu's right to make a representation, and its impact on his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detenu's fundamental right to make a representation to the State Government, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, was violated due to the discrepancy in the translation, leading to the impugned detention order being unsustainable in law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned detention order was set aside, and the petitioner detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.

JUDGMENT -VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu Santosh Bhau Panchal has impugned the order dated 18-5-2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).

The detention order along with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 14-10-2001, (according to the respondents, on the date of his arrest i.e. 21-5-2001 the detenu refused to accept the service of the detention order and the grounds of detention.)

True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.

2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 187 of 2000 under sections 394, 397, 342, 34, 109, 411 I.P.C. r/w section 37(a) 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sections 4, 25(1-b), (b), 27, 35 of the Arms Act registered on the basis of a complaint dated 16-11-2000 lodged by Sanadeo Dhepe at Dongri Police Station and in camera statement of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 27-3-2001 and 10-4-2001 respectively.

Since in our judgment, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the said C.R. and in camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of the solitary ground pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner detenu i.e. Ground No. 6(A) pleaded in petition, we are not adverting to them.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Ground No. 6(A) in substance is that whereas in para 8 of the original grounds of detention (in English) the petitioner detenu has been apprised that he had a right to make a representation to the State Government, in para 8 of the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention what has been communicated to him is that he is capable/competent to make a representation.

Mr. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner detenu urged that on account of this infirmity in the translation, the petitioner detenu's fundamental right to make an effective and purposeful representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been impaired.

4. Ground No. 6(A) has been replied to in para 7 of the return of the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority has averred therein that it is denied that in para 8 of the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu in Marathi, the detenu has not been apprised of his right of making a representation to the State Government. It has also been averred that it is denied that the detenu's right to make an effective and purposeful representation, under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, was impaired.

We have perused the averments contained in ground No. 6(A) of the petition, those contained in para 7 of the return of the Detaining Authority wherein the said ground has been replied to, perused para 8 of the original grounds of detention and the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention and heard learned Counsel for the parties. In our judgment, the pleading in ground No. 6 (A of the petition is correct. We have ourselves gone through the Marathi translation of para 8 of the grounds of detention and what we find is that therein it has been mentioned that the detenu has been informed that in case he had any grievance or complaint against the detention order, he was fully capable of making a representation to the State Government etc. In our judgment, the expression fully capable cannot be equated with the word right. The expression fully capable conveys that in case the detenu wanted he could make a representation. On the converse, the word right clearly and categorically means that it was the right of the detenu to make a representat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document