9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Compliance with the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution regarding communication of grounds of detention in a language understood by the detained person. Detailed Analysis: The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court involved an appeal against an Order of Detention made by the District Magistrate under the Preventive Detention Act. The appellant had filed an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the State of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate of Nagpur. The appellant contended that the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution had not been fully complied with, as he was not provided with the grounds of detention in a language he understood. The District Magistrate had issued the detention order in English, and despite the appellant's request for a Hindi version to understand the charges, the District Magistrate declined, stating that English was the official language. The High Court held that service of the order in English was sufficient compliance with the Constitution and that the oral translation by the Police Officer at the time of service was adequate for the appellant to make a representation. The appellant, represented by Mr. Bobde, argued that mere service of the order in English did not fulfill the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds effectively to a person not conversant with English. The Attorney-General contended that the detenue knew English, but the High Court found that the appellant's knowledge was limited. The Supreme Court emphasized that under Art. 22(5), communication of grounds meant imparting sufficient knowledge to the detenue to make an effective representation. Merely serving the grounds in English and orally translating them were deemed insufficient for a detained person unable to understand the language. The Court referenced a previous case to highlight that effective communication of grounds was crucial for the detained person's right to make a representation. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's conclusion that communication in English was adequate as long as it was the official language. The Court reiterated that for a detained person not proficient in English, the grounds must be provided in a language understood by the individual. The Constitution guarantees personal liberty subject to safeguards, including the right to be informed of the grounds of detention for making a representation. As the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to effectively challenge his detention due to the language barrier, the Court declared the detention illegal and set aside the orders of the High Court and the District Magistrate. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of effective communication of grounds of detention in a language comprehensible to the detained person as mandated by the Constitution. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding the detained person's rights and ensuring procedural fairness in preventive detention cases.
|
