IMPORTANT POINT
Amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenu but also to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to detenu.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India Article 22(5)-Preventive detention-Supply of documents to detenu-Document should be in the language known to detenu-Detenu sought for copy of remand order in her language (Tamil)-Remand order was relied upon by detaining authority-Detenu did not know English language-Translated copy not given though specifically demanded but remand order was explained in her language to detenue-Article 22(5) violated-Continued detention illegal.
       Held : Per majority (Thomas and Quadri, JJ.) (D.P. Wadhwa, J. dissending).
       Article 22(5) of Constitution imposes twin obligations on the authority making the order of detention in respect of a person. They are: (1) to communicate to such person the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and (2) to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. (Para 7)
       The law relating to preventive detention has been crystallized and the principles are well-nigh settled. The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenu but also to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the detenu. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. (Para 8)
       However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu s complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language. (Para 9)
       In the instant case, the appellant has made a representation for supply of the Tamil version of the copy of the order of remand and specifically stated that the detenue could not understand the English language. Admittedly, the Tamil version of the order of remand was not furnished to her. A perusal of the grounds shows that the order of remand was relied upon by the second respondent to reach subjective satisfaction, so the detenue need not show that any prejudice was caused to her due to the non-supply of the Tamil version of the order of remand. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in holding that the non-furnishing of the copy of the order of remand would not in any way prejudice the detenue. The non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. (Paras 15 & 16)
       (ii) Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982-Preventive detention-Failure to give document in detenu s mother tongue -Legal effect of-Remand order considered by detaining authority-Translated copy of remand order in detenu s language asked for but not given-Contents of document, however, explained in detenue s language-Held, provisions of Article 22(5) violated and hence continued detention vitiated, (Paras 7, 8, 9, 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

Quadri, J.-(for Thomas, J. and himself).-Leave is granted.

2. The appellant is the mother of the detenue, Smt. Lakshmi, who was detained by Order No. BDFGIS No. 38 of 1998 dated 12.4.1980, passed by the second respondent under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (for short "the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"). Her challenge to the said order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, HCP No. 659 of 1998, before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras having been unsuccessful, she is before us by special leave against the order of the High Court dated 5.10.1998, dismissing the said petition.

3. The detenue was ordered to be detained by the second respondent on the ground that she was a bootlegger within the meaning of the said Act and was indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. He referred to four cases filed under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in which she was found guilty and was fined, Rs. 250 in two cases and Rs. 350 in two cases. On the day when she was served with the impugned order of detention, she was in judicial remand in connection with a case filed under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 which was filed on the allegation that she was selling liquid in bottles which contained chloral hydrate, 99.2 mg% weight/volume, which was injurious to the health of the consumers.

4. The only ground urged before us by Mr. K.K. Mani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the detenue was denied the right to make effective representation because the order dated 5.4.1998 remanding the detenue to judicial custody relied upon by the second respondent in the grounds of detention was passed in English but the Tamil version of that document was not supplied to her even though she specifically demanded for the same as she did not know English at all.

5. Mr. N. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, argued that as the grounds of detention and the said document was translated and explained in Tamil to the detenue, no prejudice was caused to her in making an effective representation due to not supplying the Tamil version of the remand order.

6. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure to supply the Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.

7. The contention of Mr. Mani is founded on clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India which reads thus:

"22. (5) When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order."

It imposes twin obligations on the authority making the order of detention in respect of a person. They are: (1) to communicate to such person the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and (2) to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

8. The law relating to preventive detention has been crystallized and the principles are well-nigh settled. The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenu but also to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the detenu. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. (See Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack1).

9. However, this Court has maintained a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 39

Cases Referred (6)