Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1269 - HC - CustomsIssues Involved: 1. Delay in serving the detention order and grounds of detention. 2. Defective translation in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention. 3. Non-disclosure of the representation to the Advisory Board. 4. Delay in forwarding the representation to the sponsoring authority. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Serving the Detention Order and Grounds of Detention: The petitioner argued that although the detention order was passed on 21.09.2023, it was not served on the detenu until 30.09.2023, thus preventing the detenu from making an effective representation before the Advisory Board. The respondents countered that the detention order and grounds of detention were served within a reasonable period of three days after the detenu's arrest on 27.09.2023. The court found that the delay in serving the documents did not have a significant impact on the case since the petitioner was able to make a representation subsequently. 2. Defective Translation in the Tamil Version of the Grounds of Detention: The petitioner contended that the Tamil version of the grounds of detention contained defective translations, particularly regarding the address of the Advisory Board and the term "representation," which misled the petitioner and prevented an effective representation. The court acknowledged that the translation errors, including the incorrect address of the Advisory Board, led to the return of the petitioner's representation with the postal endorsement "no such person." The court emphasized that the respondents' duty to provide accurate translations was not fulfilled, thus depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to make a timely representation. 3. Non-disclosure of the Representation to the Advisory Board: The petitioner claimed that the representation dated 29.09.2023 was not placed before the Advisory Board, as evidenced by the communication from the sponsoring authority stating that no representation had been received by 12.10.2023. The court found that the representation sent by the petitioner on 29.09.2023 was intended to seek the grounds of detention and not to challenge the detention order. However, the court noted that the representation sent by the petitioner's advocate through email on the same day did raise concerns about the detention order, which should have been placed before the Advisory Board. 4. Delay in Forwarding the Representation to the Sponsoring Authority: The petitioner argued that there was an undue delay in forwarding the representation dated 20.10.2023 to the sponsoring authority, which was received on 10.11.2023 but forwarded only on 17.11.2023. The respondents explained that the delay was due to intervening holidays and the need for translation. The court held that any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. The court emphasized that the respondents should have shown sensitivity and timely disposed of the representation, especially when the liberty of a citizen was at stake. Conclusion: The court concluded that the defective translation in the grounds of detention, the non-disclosure of the representation to the Advisory Board, and the delay in forwarding the representation to the sponsoring authority collectively denied the detenu the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5). Consequently, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu unless required in connection with any other case.
|