9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Detention under COFEPOSA Act, Grounds of detention in a language not understood by detenue, Violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India
In this judgment by the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), the petitioner, a detenue under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, challenged his detention on the grounds that the documents and grounds of detention were provided in languages he did not understand, thus violating his right of representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that as he was only conversant in Tamil and did not know Hindi, English, or Marathi, the Detaining Authority failed to communicate the grounds effectively. The respondent contended that the petitioner understood Hindi based on statements recorded earlier. However, the court held that mere provision of documents in a known language without ensuring comprehension does not fulfill the requirements of Article 22 (5). The court found that the detenue's right to make effective representation was compromised, leading to the quashing of the detention order and the immediate release of the petitioner unless required in another case. The primary issue in this case revolved around the detenue's claim that the grounds of detention were not effectively communicated to him as they were in languages he did not understand, thereby infringing upon his right of representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The detenue, who only knew Tamil, argued that receiving documents in Hindi, English, and Marathi deprived him of the ability to comprehend the grounds of his detention. The court analyzed the respondent's assertion that the detenue understood Hindi based on prior statements but emphasized that mere provision of documents in a known language does not guarantee effective communication of the grounds. The court concluded that the detenue's right to representation was indeed violated due to the language barrier, leading to the quashing of the detention order. The court delved into the significance of ensuring effective communication of grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. Despite the respondent's argument that the detenue knew Hindi, the court stressed that the detenue's inability to read or write Hindi rendered the provision of documents in Hindi insufficient for fulfilling the requirements of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted that the detenue's right to make meaningful representation was a fundamental aspect of due process, which was compromised in this case. Consequently, the court found the detention order to be illegal, unconstitutional, and void, leading to the immediate release of the petitioner unless required in another case. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of ensuring effective communication of grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenue to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The court's decision to quash the detention order was based on the detenue's right to make meaningful representation being compromised due to the language barrier, despite the respondent's assertion regarding the detenue's understanding of Hindi. The ruling reaffirmed the significance of upholding constitutional rights, particularly in cases involving deprivation of liberty, to safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and ensure adherence to due process principles.
|
