Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, brother of detenu Salim Maqbul Shaikh, challenged a detention order dated 13.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The detention order was for six months and was served on the detenu on the same day. The petitioner argued that the Marathi translation of the detention order supplied to the detenu wrongly stated that the purpose was to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order', whereas the English original stated 'supplies of essential commodities'. This variance, according to the petitioner, deprived the detenu of his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court examined the impugned order, the translation, and the affidavit in reply. The court noted that the Apex Court in Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Kokta v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1184, had set aside a detention order on similar grounds, holding that such variance defeats the right to make an effective representation. The court also considered the State's reliance on A.C. Razia v. Government of Kerala, (2004) 2 SCC 621, but found that the variance in translation was fatal. The court concluded that the grounds and reasoning in the detention order must be clear and consistent, and the variance in translation violated the detenu's constitutional right. Accordingly, the court quashed and set aside the detention order and directed the detenu's release.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Effective Representation - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Variance in Translation - The detenu was supplied a Marathi translation of the detention order which wrongly stated the purpose as 'public order' instead of 'supplies of essential commodities' as in the English original. The court held that such variance defeats the right to make an effective representation and renders the detention order illegal. (Paras 1-4) B) Preventive Detention - Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - Grounds of Detention - Clarity and Consistency - The grounds and reasoning in the detention order must be clear and not in variance. The court relied on Vijay Kumar Dharna alias Kokta v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1184, to set aside the detention order. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the variance between the English and Marathi versions of the detention order, where the Marathi translation incorrectly stated 'public order' instead of 'supplies of essential commodities', violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 13.03.2010 and directed the release of the detenu forthwith.
Law Points
- Variance in translation of detention order violates right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of Constitution
- Detention order under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act
- 1980 must be clear and consistent in language
