The incomplete translation of critical documents leading to the impairment of a detainee's constitutional safeguard can result in the dislodgment of a detention order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records, relating to the petitioner''s son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 30.07.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo in BCDFGISSSV No.225/2022, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner''s son namely Rishi @ Rishikesh, S/o.Vijayan, aged 23 years before this Hon''ble Court and set the petitioner''s son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner''s son detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.)

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 30.07.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.225/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.

2. Impugned detention order has been made under ''The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)'' [hereinafter ''Act 14 of 1982'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a ''Goonda'' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

3. There are five adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which is the substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.137 of 2022 on the file of R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 397 and 506(ii) of ''The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)'' [hereinafter ''IPC'' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

4. Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all four respondents are before us.

5. Notwithstanding very many averments and grounds raised in the support affidavit, Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi, learned counsel for petitioner projects his argument or in other words predicates his campaign against the impugned detention order on one point and that one point turns on improper / incorrect translation owing to complete omission of a portion of the remand order. Learned counsel drew our attention to pages 114 and 116 of grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in the form of a booklet [hereinafter ''said booklet'' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

6. Page 114 is a remand order dated 11.07.2022 made by the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate. This remand order clearly reads that A1 to A3 complained of physical assault by the police and they have also complained that false case has been foisted against them by the police. The relevant line in the remand order (as made in English by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate) reads as follows:

''A1 to A3 complained of physical assault and false case against the police''

The aforementioned entire sentence is missing in the tamil translation.

7. We are informed (without any disputation or contestation) that the literacy level of the detenu is only that of Class 10 in school, that he is a school drop out and that he is conversant only with Tamil. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the further submission of learned counsel for petitioner that this lapse in translation has impaired the constitutional safeguard of making effective representation vested in the detenu inter alia by clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. This means that the impugned