1980 (6) TMI 115 - SC - FEMA

Whether the grounds of detention were couched in English a language which the detenu did not understand at all and these grounds were not explained to him? Held that - The service of the ground of detention on the detenu is a very precious constitutional right and where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex-facie. Section ll of the Act confers a constitutional right on the detenu to have his representation considered by the Central Government. It is true that the Central Government has a discretion to revoke or confirm the detention but the detenu has undoubtedly a right that his representation should be considered by the Central Government for whatever worth it is. The mere fact that the detenu had sent a copy to the Central Government does not absolve the detaining authority from the statutory duty of forwarding the representation of the detenu to the Central Government - appeal allowed - the continued detention of the detenu in this case is legally invalid

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of grounds of detention being in English, a language not understood by the detenu.
2. Failure to provide vernacular translation of the grounds or explanation in a language known to the detenu.
3. Admissibility of the affidavit regarding the explanation of grounds to the detenu.
4. Importance of serving grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenu.
5. Requirement for a translated script and certificate of explanation when grounds are in an unknown language.
6. Necessity of strict compliance with constitutional safeguards in detention orders.
7. Failure to forward detenu's representation to the Central Government under Section 11 of the Act.
8. Denial of detenu's constitutional right to have his representation considered by the Central Government.

Analysis:
The detenu in this case was detained under COFEPOSA by the Government of Gujarat. The detenu requested documents for a more effective representation, which were provided after the detention order was confirmed. The detenu alleged that the grounds of detention were in English, a language he did not understand, and were not explained to him. The detaining authority claimed the grounds were explained in a language known to the detenu, but no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of serving grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenu, as failure to do so would vitiate the detention.

Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that mere oral explanation without a translation in a language understood by the detenu denies the right to be communicated the grounds. The Court stressed the necessity of providing a translated script and a certificate of explanation when the grounds are in an unfamiliar language. The judges reiterated the requirement for strict compliance with constitutional safeguards in detention orders to prevent arbitrary detentions.

Another issue raised was the failure to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government as requested. The detaining authority argued that since the detenu had sent a copy himself, they did not forward it. However, the Court ruled that the detenu had a constitutional right for his representation to be considered by the Central Government, and the failure to forward it was unacceptable. Consequently, the Court found the detenu's continued detention legally invalid and ordered his immediate release, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rights of individuals in detention cases.