2004 (9) TMI 701 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-furnishing of translated copies of documents.
2. Rejection of subsequent representation for translated documents.
3. Delay in consideration of representations.
4. Mistaken identity and relevance of incidents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-furnishing of translated copies of documents:
The detenu's wife filed a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the preventive detention order dated 6.4.2004 under Section 3(1)(i) of COFEPOSA. The primary issue was the non-furnishing of translated copies of relevant documents in Hindi. The detenu, who was not conversant in English, had requested translations to make an effective representation. The court emphasized that the detenu's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was in Hindi, indicating his lack of proficiency in English. The court cited precedents, including *HADIBANDHU DAS v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK AND ANOTHER* and *LALLUBHAI JOGIBHAI PATEL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS*, which establish that non-furnishing of translated documents prevents the detenu from making a purposeful and effective representation, thus vitiating the detention order.

2. Rejection of subsequent representation for translated documents:
The detenu's subsequent representation requesting translations was rejected on the grounds that the documents were standardized and the detenu, being a regular exporter, did not need translations. The court found this reasoning flawed, noting that the documents contained specific entries relevant to the detention decision. The court referenced a Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 279/88, reinforcing that documents must be translated into a language known to the detenu to enable effective representation. The court concluded that the rejection of the detenu's request for translations on the pretext of standardization was unjustified.

3. Delay in consideration of representations:
The petition highlighted delays in the disposal of the detenu's representations. The court noted that the petition was admitted on 5.5.2004, but counters were not filed promptly by the respondents, leading to repeated adjournments. The court emphasized the constitutional imperative under Article 22 for timely disposal of representations and criticized the respondents for seeking repeated adjournments. The court underscored the need for expeditious handling of Habeas Corpus Petitions, given the liberty of the individual involved.

4. Mistaken identity and relevance of incidents:
The detenu contended that the incidents relied upon by the detaining authority did not relate to him, suggesting mistaken identity. However, the court focused primarily on the issue of non-furnishing of translated documents and did not delve deeply into this contention. The court concluded that the failure to provide translated copies of relied documents itself vitiated the detention order, rendering it unnecessary to address the mistaken identity claim in detail.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the detention order, directing the immediate release of the detenu unless required in another case. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing translated documents to non-English-speaking detenus to ensure their right to make an effective representation. The court also stressed the need for timely disposal of Habeas Corpus Petitions to uphold the fundamental right to liberty.