Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Jasvinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and basis for detention (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. grounds of challenge to the detention order (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments related to communication of detention order (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. judicial precedents supporting the need for effective communication (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal conclusions about the requirement of communication in a language understood by the detenu (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. conclusion on quashing of the detention order (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. disposition of the judgment and communications directives (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. The petitioner Jasvinder Kaur has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of her son, Harmeet Singh, who the petitioner alleges, has been illegally detained by the respondents. After amendment of the array of party-respondents, the respondents in the proceedings are the Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Economic Intelligence Bureau); Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA);
The grounds for preventive detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands to ensure the right to make effective representation, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be and that he be afforded an opportunity....
Detention orders under preventive laws must communicate grounds in a language understood by the detainee; failure to do so violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detenue, being illiterate, must have the grounds of detention explained to him in a language he understands, as mandated by Article 22(5) ....
(1) Preventive detention – There is subtle difference between background facts leading to detention order and grounds of detention – Effective knowledge qua a detenu is of utmost importance.(2) In a ....
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the grounds for detention are communicated in illegible or untranslated documents, infringing the detenu's constitutional rights to make effective repre....
The failure to provide detention materials in the language known to the detenue violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention order illegal.
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
