9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (6) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supply of documents to him in order to make a more effective representation. These documents however were supplied on March 27, 1980 although the order of detention was itself confirmed on March 21, 1980. In the representation sent to the Government, the detenu had made a specific prayer that his representation should be forwarded to the Central Government for being considered. In support of the rule, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, counsel appearing for the detenu raised two points before this Court. In the first place it was submitted that the counsel on behalf of the detenu has expressly pleaded that the grounds of detention were couched in English, a language which the detenu did not understand at all and these grounds were not explained to him. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would thus vitiate the detention ex-facie. In case of Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttak & Anr. [1969 (1) SCR 227], it was clearly held that merely oral explanation of an order without supplying him a translation in a script or language which the detenu understood amounted to a denial of right of being communicated the grounds. Tn the instant case, it is not even alleged in the affidavit of Mr. Shah that any translation or translated script of the grounds was furnished to the detenu. In case of Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack & g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject is. in peril. Another ground taken by Mr. Ram Jethmalani in support of the rule is that although the detenu had made a specific prayer in his representation to the State Government that his representation should he forwarded to the Central Government for consideration under section 11 of the Act, yet the detaining authority did not choose to forward the representation to the Central Government at all. This position is admitted and the defence taken is that as the detenu had himself sent a copy to the Central Government, the detaining authority did not think it necessary to forward the representation to the Central Government. This defence is wholly unacceptable. Section l l of the Act confers a constitutional right on the detenu to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
