R. Jayasimha Babu, J.: The person, who has been detained as a goonda and against whom there are numerous adverse cases as set out in the detention order, which if established in Courts after due trial will result in punishment of great severity and who has also been involved in a ground case of attempt to murder, all of which will cumulatively justify his being labelled as a goonda, has now to be released on the short ground that the translation of the detention order given to him in Tamil, the only language which he knows, omits to set out a whole paragraph of the original order, which is made in English.

2. The omitted portion reads thus:

“A copy of the petition sent by one Tmt.Udaya dated 30.11.2001 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai, was also placed before me. I have gone through the contentions raised in the said petition and the relevant case records. The contentions raised by the petitioner are not correct and, hence, I am not giving much credence to the petition and felt that the same is given with ulterior motive to use the same as defence document.”

3. In the Tamil version of the order of detention with the grounds, which is also signed by the detaining authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 7.12.2001 by which the petitioner Veeramani, aged 45 years, son of Kalappan of Ayothiyakuppam, Chennai, was directed to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, completely omits to set out that portion which is extracted above. To make matters worse, though the detenu had, by his representation dated 30.12.2001 had pointed out this omission and had sought for the Tamil translation of the same, the Government, did not even after receiving such a request comply with the same. The reply given by the Government to that representation does not even make a reference to this part of his request. It may be mentioned here that the representation also refers to numerous other alleged lacuna to which it is now not necessary to refer.

4. One of the ground cases against the detenu is that on 29.10.2001, that is about less than two months prior to the date of the detention order, the detenu and his gangmen had, after tying the hands of one Shanmugam, who had to attend the 6th Sessions Court and who was proceeding through the staircase of the Court, threatened him with a knife and removed him from the Court premises, inflicted serious injuries and terrorised him in order to prevent him from deposing in a pending criminal case. That case is stated to be under investigation. We have mentioned that ground case only to indicate the seriousness with which the matter concerning this detenu should have been dealt with by the detaining authority and others who are concerned with the examination of the representation that the detenu made to the Government thereafter.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was for the detenu to have asked as to what happened to the representation that had been given by his wife, as that was in fact the representation that was referred to in the omitted portion of the order given in Tamil, and that, if he had asked, he would have been informed as to what the outcome was. He also submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by reason of the omission of a part of the order in the translation. The arguments so advanced for the State cannot be accepted.

6. The Constitutional guarantee under Art.22(5) is that a detenu, who is sought to be preventively detained shall be served with the ground on which the order has been made, and shall also be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The ground on which the detention order has been made should therefore be communicated to the detenu. The communication, as has been held by the Courts must necessarily be in a language known to the detenu. The communication to be effected to such detenu should be not merely be a portion of the order made, but of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document