Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, SATYA NARAYAN CHAKRABARTY
PUSPA SONI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Of
Decided On : 03/22/1996
ARTICLE 22(5) - PREVENTIVE DETENTION - SECTION 3(3) OF COFEPOSA - INADEQUATE TRANSLATION OF DETENTION GROUNDS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 22(5) - DETENTION QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order issued under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on the ground that the Hindi translation of the detention grounds served upon the detenu was incomplete and illegible, and there were discrepancies between the English and Hindi versions of the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Hindi translation of the detention grounds was incomplete and illegible, and there were discrepancies between the English and Hindi versions of the detention order. The court held that these discrepancies prejudiced the detenu and violated the procedural safeguards required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the incomplete and illegible Hindi translation of the detention grounds and the discrepancies between the English and Hindi versions of the detention order violated the procedural safeguards required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu in a language that he understands is a mandatory requirement under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the communication must be effective and full, and that mere verbal explanation of the grounds without providing written documents in a language understood by the detenu is not sufficient.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the release of the detenu.
( 1 ) THIS application for Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by one Sm. Puspa Soni, wife of the detenu Sri Murari Lal Soni who had been detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, in terms of an order of detention dated 1-11-95 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, as contained in Annexure 'a' to the writ application.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the detenu had read up to Class II and does not know English. The authorities appear to have also accepted the said fact and along with the documents relied upon in the order of detention Hindi translation thereof had been served upon the detenu. In the writ application, the petitioner has raised various contentions, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that this writ application can be disposed of only on one ground.
( 3 ) IT is admitted that the detenu was served with the grounds of detention in Hindi language as well as in English language on 13-11-95. According to the detenu, many pages in the grounds of detention both in Hindi and English were illegible and there existed a lot of discrepancy in the English grounds of detention and Hindi grounds of detention. It was the further contention of the petitioner that Hindi grounds of detention served upon the detenu was not complete.
( 4 ) MR. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has taken us through many documents and submits that a bare perusal thereof would show that even a correct translation thereof had not been served upon the detenu. Learned counsel submits that in terms of Article 22 (5) read with sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, an order of detention would stand vitiated in the event the detenu had not been communicated with the grounds so as to enable him to make an effective representation. It is now well settled that the communication so made, must be in a language which can be understood by the detenu. In the case of Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat reported in (1982) 3 SCC 440 : (AIR 1982 SC 1500) the Supreme Court held at Page 1503; of AIR :"in other words, mere service of the grounds in Urdu accompanied by copies of material documents and statements in English, Hindi or Gujarati on the petitioner on July 7 is no sufficient compliance of the duty to communicate contemplated by Article 22 (5) according to counsel and he insisted that only on July 15, 1982 when Urdu translations of the bulk of documents and statements were served it could be said that the grounds were communicated to the detenu i. e. after 13 days of his detention without there being any exceptional circumstances and even on that date all Urdu translations were not furnished and this has happened notwithstanding the revocation of the earlier order precisely for failure to supply Urdu translations. It is in this manner that the constitutional safeguards conferred on the petitioner under Article 22 (5) read with Section 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA have been denied to him and, therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal. "
( 5 ) IN Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 427 : (1981 Cri LJ 288) the Apex Court observed that the work 'communication' is a strong word which means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The Apex Court emphasised that if the grounds are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22 (5) is infringed. In Mrs. Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi reported in (1987) 2 SCC 69 : (1987 Cri LJ 988) the Apex Court held at
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
