Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Firoz Hyder Shaikh @ Kalya Firoz, was detained under a preventive detention order dated 5th September 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981. The detenu sent a letter petition from jail, which was converted into a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court appointed Mr. U.N. Tripathi as amicus curiae to assist. The primary ground urged was that the grounds of detention were served in English and Marathi, but the detenu knew only Hindi and Urdu, thus he could not make an effective representation. The State argued that the detenu was explained the grounds in Hindi by the police officer. However, the court found that the record did not show that the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation or that the grounds were read over to him in Hindi. The court held that the failure to communicate the grounds in a language known to the detenu violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act. The court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Representation - Communication of Grounds in Known Language - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India, Section 8 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - The detenu was served with grounds of detention in English and Marathi, but the detenu claimed he knew only Hindi and Urdu - The court held that the detaining authority must ensure that the grounds are communicated in a language known to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation - Failure to do so violates the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) and renders the detention order invalid (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu vitiates the preventive detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 5th September 2011, and directed the detenu's release unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Right to make representation
- Communication of grounds in known language
- Article 22(5) of Constitution
- Section 8 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act
- 1981
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 82
Criminal Writ Petition No.712 of 2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, R.Y. Ganoo
Mr. U.N. Tripathi (amicus curiae), Ms. M.H. Mhatre (A.P.P. for Respondents)
Firoz Hyder Shaikh @ Kalya Firoz
The Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra; The Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a preventive detention order passed under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the preventive detention order dated 5th September 2011 and release of the detenu.
Filing Reason
The detenu claimed that the grounds of detention were served in English and Marathi, languages not known to him, thereby violating his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Previous Decisions
The detention order was passed on 5th September 2011 by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, and approved by the State Government on 14th September 2011.
Issues
Whether the failure to communicate the grounds of detention in a language known to the detenu violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.
Submissions/Arguments
The amicus curiae argued that the grounds of detention were served in English and Marathi, but the detenu knew only Hindi and Urdu, thus he could not make an effective representation.
The State argued that the detenu was explained the grounds in Hindi by the police officer who served the order, and that the detenu had signed the acknowledgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The detaining authority must ensure that the grounds of detention are communicated to the detenu in a language known to him to enable him to make an effective representation. Failure to do so violates the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, rendering the detention order invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The detenu was served with the grounds of detention in English and Marathi. The detenu claims that he knows only Hindi and Urdu. The record does not show that the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation or that the grounds were read over to him in Hindi.
The failure to communicate the grounds in a language known to the detenu violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner sent a letter petition from jail which was converted into a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court appointed Mr. U.N. Tripathi as amicus curiae. The State filed a reply affidavit. After hearing arguments, the court delivered judgment on 28th August 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 22(5), Article 226
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981: Section 3, Section 8
