http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SURJEET SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1981

BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D. ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1153            1981 SCR  (3) 205  1981 SCC  (2) 359        1981 SCALE  (1)826  CITATOR INFO :  R          1990 SC 605  (5)

ACT:      Whether service  on the  detenu, whose mother tongue is Hindi of the grounds of detention in English, a language not understood  by   him,  vitiates   the  detention-Grounds  of detention explained  to the  detenu in  Hindi by the Serving Officer-Not enough-Grounds must be supplied in Hindi.

HEADNOTE:      Allowing the petitions, the Court ^      HELD: The  supply to  the detenus  of  the  grounds  of detention in  the English  language with which they were not conversant  could   not  be   considered  to   be  effective communication to  them so  as  to  afford  to  them  a  real opportunity of  making a representation against the order of detention. Their detention is repugnant to the provisions of Article 22  (5) of  the Constitution. The complicated nature or the length of the document, is not a sine qua non for the fulfilment of  the requirement  that  the  grounds  must  be supplied to  the detenu  in a  language which  he understood before  the   service  on  him  of  such  grounds  could  be considered a communication thereof to him. [206C-D, 208E-G]      Harikisan v.  The State  of Maharashtra  & Ors.  [1962] Suppl. 2  SCR 918;  Habibandhu Das  v. District  Magistrate, Cuttack and  Anr, [1969]  1 SCR 227; Nainmal Pratap Mal Shah v. Union of India and Ors. [1980] 4 S.C.C. 427, followed.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 5931 and 5932 of 1980.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)      N. M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Petitioners.      M. K.  Banerjee Addl. Sol. Genl., R. N. Poddar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KOSHAL, J.  By this  order we shall dispose of Criminal Writ Petitions  Nos. 5931  and 5932 of 1980 in each of which the  contention  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

petitioners is the same.      2. In  Criminal Writ  Petition No.  5931 of  1980,  the petitioner is one Surjeet Singh while the other petition has been filed by a person named Kulwant Singh. 206      3. Each  of the  petitioners was  detained on  the 13th October, 1980  under the provisions of the National Security Ordinance which now stands replaced by the National Security Act. They  were arrested  on that date and on each of them a police officer  served an  order of detention along with the grounds on  which it  was based, both the documents being in English. It  is the  case of  the State and the same has not been  controverted   before  us,  that  the  police  officer effecting the  service of the two documents explained to the concerned detenu in Hindi what their contents were.      4.  Dr.   N.  M.   Ghatate,  learned  counsel  for  the petitioners  has   challenged  the   detention  of  the  two petitioners with  the contention  that  English  was  not  a language which  either of  them understood, that this factor rendered it  necessary for  the grounds  of detention  to be served on  them in  Hindi which  was their mother-tongue and that the  same having  not been  done, there  was in  law no communication of such grounds to either of them.      5. After  hearing learned  counsel for  the parties, we have no  hesitation in  holding that  the challenge  to  the detention is well-founded in view of the dicta of this Court in  Harikisan   v.  The   State  of  Madarashtra  &  Others, Hadibandhu Das  v. District  Magistrate, Cuttak  & Anr., and Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India and Others.      In  the  first  of  these  cases  an  order  under  the Preventive Detention  Act (Central Act IV of 1950) was under challenge. The grounds of detention had been provided to the detenu in  English and a request by him for a translation of the same  was turned down. The High Court was of the opinion that so  long  as  English  continued  to  be  the  official language of  the State,  the communication of the grounds of detention in  that language  was enough  compliance with the requirements of  the Constitution. This opinion did not find favour with  Sinha, C.J., who delivered the judgment of this Court and observed:           If the  detained person  is  conversant  with  the      English language, he will naturally be in a position to      understand the  gravamen of  the charge against him and      the facts  and circumstances  on  which  the  order  of      detention is based. But to a 207      person who  is  not  so  conversant  with  the  English      language, in  order to  satisfy the requirements of the      Constitution, the detenu must be given the grounds in a      language which he can understand, and in a script which      he can read, if he is a literate person.           The  Constitution   has  guaranteed   freedom   of      movement throughout the territory of India and has laid      down detailed  rules as to arrest and detention. It has      also,  by  way  of  limitations  upon  the  freedom  of      personal liberty,  recognised the right of the State to      legislate for  preventive detention, subject to certain      safeguards in  favour of  the detained  person, as laid      down in clauses (4) and (5) of article 22. One of those      safeguards is that the detained person has the right to      be communicated  the grounds  on  which  the  order  of      detention has  been made  against him, in order that he      may be  able to  make the  representation  against  the      order  of   detention.   In   our   opinion,   in   the      circumstances of  this case, it has not been shown that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    the  appellant  had  the  opportunity,  which  the  law      contemplates in  his favour,  of  making  an  effective      representation against  his detention.  On this  ground      alone we  declare his  detention illegal, and set aside      the order  of the High Court and the Order of Detention      passed against him."      In Hadibandhu’s  case (supra)  also an  order under the Preventive Detention  Act was  impugned with  the contention that the  grounds of  detention had not been supplied to the detenu in  the language  and script which he understood. The order  was  struck  down  by  this  Court  for  the  reasons appearing in the following passage :           "The grounds in support of the order served on the      appellant ran into fourteen typed pages and referred to      his activities  over a period of thirteen years, beside      referring  to  a  large  number  of  court  proceedings      concerning him and other persons who were alleged to be      his associates.  Mere oral explanation of a complicated      order of  the nature made against the appellant without      supplying him  the translation  in script  and language      which he  understood would,  in our  judgment amount to      denial of  the right  of being communicated the grounds      and of  being afforded  the  opportunity  of  making  a      representation against the order." 208      In  Nainmal’s   case,  Fazal   Ali,  J.,  who  followed Hadibandhu’s  case,  held  that  the  communication  of  the grounds of  detention in a language understood by the detenu was an essential requirement for the validity of a detention order which,  in  the  absence  of  such  requirement  being fulfilled, would  be repugnant  to the provisions of article 22(5) of the Constitution and would thus stand vitiated. And that is  a view  which has  been consistently  held by  this Court.      6. The  facts with  which we  are here concerned, in so far as  they are  relevant to  the  decision  of  the  point canvassed before  us, are  on all  fours with  those of  the three cases cited above. As already pointed out, the grounds of detention  were supplied  to the  two petitioners  in the English  language-a   language  with  which  they  were  not conversant. The  service of  the grounds  on  them  in  that manner could not be considered under the circumstances to be effective communication  to them  thereof so as to afford to them a  real opportunity  of making a representation against the order of detention.      7. It is true, as pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General,  that in  Hadibandhu’s case  (supra)  the grounds of detention covered numerous pages and related to a long period  of time and, according to this Court, contained "a complicated  order". The complicated nature or the length of the document, however, was only mentioned incidentally by this Court  and was  not meant  to be a sine qua non for the fulfilment of  the requirement  that  the  grounds  must  be supplied to  the detenu  in a  language which  he understood before  the   service  on  him  of  such  grounds  could  be considered a  communication thereof  to him for the purposes of the Preventive Detention Act.      8. In  the result  both the  petitions succeed  and are accepted. The  detention of  each of the petitioners is held to be  repugnant to  the provisions  of article 22(5) of the Constitution and  is struck  down on  that account.  Both of them are  directed to be set at liberty forthwith, in so far as these petitions are concerned. V.D.K.                                 Petitions allowed. 209

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4