Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yogesh Nandu Pujari, challenged a preventive detention order dated 25 January 2012 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981. The petitioner was taken into custody and served with the grounds of detention along with copies of relied-upon documents. The petitioner contended that the injury certificate from C. S. M. Hospital, Kalwa, dated 6 August 2011, which was relied upon by the detaining authority, was in English. The petitioner was not conversant with English and had no workable knowledge of the language. Although the detaining authority furnished Marathi translations of some documents, the Marathi translation of the injury certificate was not supplied. The petitioner argued that this failure deprived him of his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court examined the grounds of detention and noted that the injury certificate was a crucial document forming part of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The court held that the non-supply of the Marathi translation of the injury certificate, despite the petitioner's inability to understand English, amounted to a violation of the constitutional right to make an effective representation. The court emphasized that the right to make a representation is meaningless if the detenu cannot understand the documents on which the detention order is based. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner's release.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Effective Representation - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Non-supply of translated document in language known to detenu - The detenu was served with grounds of detention and documents, but the injury certificate relied upon by the detaining authority was in English, while the detenu was not conversant with English. The Marathi translation of the injury certificate was not supplied. Held that the failure to supply the translated document deprived the detenu of his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, thereby vitiating the detention order. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the failure to supply Marathi translation of the injury certificate (which was in English) to the detenu, who is not conversant with English, vitiates the preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981?
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the preventive detention order dated 25 January 2012, and directed the petitioner's release forthwith.
Law Points
- Right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
- Preventive detention under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act
- 1981
- Duty to supply documents in language known to detenu
- Non-supply of translated documents vitiates detention order
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1747 of 2012
A.M. Khanwilkar, R.Y. Ganoo
Mr. U. N. Tripathi (for Petitioner), Ms. M. H. Mhatre (APP for Respondent State)
Commissioner of Police, Thane; 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
Criminal Writ Petition challenging a preventive detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the preventive detention order dated 25 January 2012 and release of the petitioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, and the grounds of detention included an injury certificate in English, but its Marathi translation was not supplied to the petitioner, who is not conversant with English, thereby violating his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Issues
Whether the non-supply of Marathi translation of the injury certificate (which was in English) to the detenu, who is not conversant with English, violates his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and vitiates the detention order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the injury certificate relied upon by the detaining authority was in English, and the petitioner is not conversant with English. The Marathi translation of the injury certificate was not supplied, depriving him of the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Respondent State argued that the petitioner was supplied with Marathi translation of other documents, and the injury certificate was not a crucial document. However, the court noted that the injury certificate was part of the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution includes the right to receive all documents relied upon by the detaining authority in a language known to the detenu. Non-supply of translated documents, especially those crucial to the subjective satisfaction, vitiates the detention order.
Judgment Excerpts
The argument proceeds that the original documents are in English version. The Petitioner is not conversant with English nor has any workable knowledge of English.
In the present case, the Detaining Authority has relied upon the injury certificates issued by C. S. M. Hospital, Kalwa, T. M. C., Thane, dated 6th August, 2011, describing the injuries caused to the victim, in respect of offence, in which, the Petitioner is named as accused.
The failure to supply the Marathi translation of the injury certificate, which was in English, to the petitioner, who is not conversant with English, has deprived him of his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Procedural History
The petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, by order dated 25 January 2012. He was served with grounds of detention and documents. He filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1747 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court challenging the detention order. The court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 6 September 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981: Section 3(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 22(5), Article 226
