Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Bharat Govari, was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by an order dated 3.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai. The detention order and grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 7.10.2016 along with Marathi translations. The detenu challenged the detention order by way of a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising several grounds. The High Court focused on ground (p), which alleged that the Marathi translation of the detention order and grounds of detention was defective, specifically that CR No. 111 of 2016 was wrongly translated as 112 of 2016 in the Marathi translation. The Court noted that the detenu is a Marathi knowing person and that the defective translation impaired his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court held that the error was not a minor or trivial mistake but a material defect that prevented the detenu from understanding the grounds properly. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order, and directed that the detenu be set at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Effective Representation - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Defective Translation - The detenu challenged the detention order on the ground that the Marathi translation of the detention order and grounds of detention was defective, as CR No. 111 of 2016 was wrongly translated as 112 of 2016 in the Marathi translation. The Court held that the detenu is a Marathi knowing person and the defective translation impaired his right to make an effective representation, thereby vitiating the detention order. (Paras 3-5) B) Preventive Detention - MPDA Act - Section 3(2) - Grounds of Detention - The detention order was based on two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements. The Court found that the error in translation of the CR number was not a minor or trivial mistake but a material defect that prevented the detenu from understanding the grounds properly. (Paras 2-5) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the detention order dated 3.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defective translation of the detention order and grounds of detention, specifically the wrong translation of CR No. 111 of 2016 as 112 of 2016 in Marathi, vitiates the detention order as it impairs the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 3.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai is quashed and set aside. The detenu Sunil Bharat Govari is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India
- Defective translation of detention order and grounds of detention violates constitutional safeguards
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords
- Bootleggers
- Drug-offenders
- Dangerous Persons
- Video Pirates
- Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black marketing of Essential Commodities Act
- 1981 (MPDA Act) - Section 3(2)
