1968 (5) TMI 54 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act.
2. Compliance with the requirement of communicating grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue.
3. Validity of the fresh detention order issued after revocation of the initial order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act:

The appellant was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on the grounds of acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds included breaches of public peace, illicit business in opium, ganja, bhang, country liquor, riotous conduct, criminal intimidation, and assault. The appellant challenged the validity of the detention order, arguing that the grounds and the order were served in English, which he did not understand. The District Magistrate subsequently provided an Oriya translation, but this was after the five-day period prescribed by Section 7 of the Act.

2. Compliance with the requirement of communicating grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue:

The court referenced the case of Harikisan v. The State of Maharashtra, where it was held that serving the grounds of detention in a language not understood by the detenue and refusing a translation violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that communication must mean imparting sufficient knowledge of the grounds to the detenue, enabling him to make an effective representation. In this case, the grounds served on the appellant ran into fourteen typed pages and included references to activities over thirteen years. The court concluded that mere oral explanation without a written translation in a language understood by the appellant amounted to a denial of the right to be communicated the grounds and to make a representation.

3. Validity of the fresh detention order issued after revocation of the initial order:

The State of Orissa revoked the initial detention order due to formal defects and issued a fresh order on January 28, 1968, without any fresh facts arising after the revocation. The court noted that Section 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act permits a fresh detention order only if fresh facts have arisen after the revocation or expiry of the previous order. The court held that the fresh order was invalid as it was not based on any new facts. The court rejected the argument that the detaining authority could issue a fresh order on the same grounds if the previous order was defective or had become illegal due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the language of Section 13(2) did not support a restricted interpretation and included revocation of both valid and invalid orders.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the fresh detention order dated January 28, 1968, was invalid as it was not based on any fresh facts arising after the revocation of the previous order. The court ordered the release of the appellant from custody.