1999 (1) TMI 538 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grounds of Detention and Communication in Language Known to Detenue
2. Prejudice Due to Non-Supply of Translated Documents
3. Legal Precedents on Preventive Detention and Communication

Summary:

1. Grounds of Detention and Communication in Language Known to Detenue:
The appellant, mother of the detenue, challenged the detention order u/s 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The detenue was detained as a bootlegger, prejudicial to public health and order. The primary contention was the non-supply of the Tamil version of the remand order, which was in English, despite the detenue's lack of understanding of English. Article 22(5) of the Constitution mandates that grounds of detention must be communicated in a language understood by the detenue to afford the earliest opportunity for representation.

2. Prejudice Due to Non-Supply of Translated Documents:
The Supreme Court emphasized that non-supply of a document relied upon in the grounds of detention, or its translation in a language known to the detenue, amounts to denial of the right to make an effective representation. The Court distinguished between documents merely referred to and those relied upon in the grounds of detention. In this case, the remand order was relied upon, and its non-supply in Tamil was deemed prejudicial, rendering the detention illegal.

3. Legal Precedents on Preventive Detention and Communication:
The Court referred to several precedents, including Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, and Chaju Ram v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, which underscored the necessity of communicating grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue. The Court also discussed Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, where the detenue's claim of not understanding the language was scrutinized. In the present case, the absence of a finding that the detenue knew English and the non-supply of the Tamil version of the remand order led to the conclusion that the detention was illegal.

Separate Judgment:
Justice D.P. Wadhwa dissented, arguing that the remand order was explained in Tamil to the detenue, and no prejudice was caused by the non-supply of its Tamil translation. He emphasized that procedural safeguards were complied with and would have dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The majority decision allowed the appeal, directing the detenue's release unless required in another case, due to the non-supply of the Tamil version of the remand order, which was essential for making an effective representation.