9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Detention under National Security Ordinance, grounds of detention served in English, challenge based on language understanding, communication of grounds in detenu's language, compliance with constitutional requirements, opportunity for effective representation, previous judgments on language understanding requirement for detention orders. Detailed Analysis: The Supreme Court delivered a judgment regarding two Criminal Writ Petitions challenging the detention of two individuals under the National Security Ordinance. The petitioners contended that the grounds of detention served in English were not understood by them, as they were not conversant with the language. The main issue was whether the communication of grounds in a language understood by the detenu was essential for compliance with constitutional requirements and providing an opportunity for effective representation against the detention order. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Harikisan v. The State of Maharashtra, Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, and Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India, which emphasized the importance of communicating the grounds of detention in a language the detenu could understand. The Court highlighted that the right to be communicated the grounds of detention in a comprehensible language was a safeguard under article 22 of the Constitution to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention. The Court concluded that serving the grounds of detention in English to individuals who did not understand the language did not fulfill the requirement of effective communication. It was held that the detention of the petitioners was repugnant to the provisions of article 22(5) of the Constitution. Therefore, the detention orders were declared illegal, and the petitioners were directed to be set at liberty immediately. The judgment reaffirmed the consistent view of the Court that communication of grounds in a language understood by the detenu was a fundamental requirement for the validity of a detention order. In summary, the judgment highlighted the significance of communicating grounds of detention in a language comprehensible to the detenu to ensure the right to effective representation and compliance with constitutional safeguards. The Court's decision emphasized the need for adherence to these principles to uphold the legality of detention orders and protect the rights of individuals under preventive detention laws.
|
