Holding

Non‑supply of the Tamil translation of the remand order, a document relied upon in the grounds of detention, invalidates the detention under Article 22(5).

Summary

The appellant's mother, Lakshmi, was detained under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug‑Offenders, Forest‑Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic‑Offenders and Slum‑Grabbers Act, 1982 while she was already in judicial remand under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The detention order cited the English‑language remand order, but a Tamil translation was not provided despite her request and inability to understand English. The issue was whether failure to supply a translation of a document relied upon in the grounds of detention violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution and rendered the detention illegal. The Court held that the safeguard under Article 22(5) requires supplying translations of documents relied upon, and that non‑supply of the Tamil version of the remand order, which was essential to the grounds, vitiated the detention. Consequently, the detention was set aside and the detainee was released.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to provide a Tamil translation of the English remand order, which was relied upon in the grounds of preventive detention, violates the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Whether non‑supply of a document merely referenced in the grounds of detention requires proof of prejudice, as opposed to a document actually relied upon.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug‑Offenders, Forest‑Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum‑grabbers Act, 1982s. 3

Subjects

Preventive detentionArticle 22(5) of the ConstitutionRight to representationLanguage rightsTranslation of groundsTamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ActTamil Nadu Prohibition ActProcedural safeguards

Judgment

A POWANAMMAL
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

JANUARY 15, 1999

B [K. T. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.)

Climinal Law :

Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drng-
C Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic-Offenders and
Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 : Section 3.

Preventive Detention-Grounds of--Commwzication of-Language of
--Documents-Supply of-Detention order was se1ved on the detenue on the
day when she was in judicial remand in a case filed under Ss.4(l)(i) and
D 4( 1-A) of the T.N. Prohibition Act-Detention challenged on ground that
detenue was denied the light to make effective representation as order of
remand to judicial custody relied upon in the grounds of detention was passed
in English but Tamil version of that document was not supplied to her even
though she specifically demanded the same as she did not know
English-Held: Copies of the documents relied on in the grounds of detention
E must be supplied to the detenue in a language understood by him-However,
in the case of non-supply of a document which merely finds a reference in
the order of detention the detenue must show prejudice caused to him while
challenging the detention orde1~In the circumstances of the case, non-supply
of the Tamil version of the order of remand renders the continued detention
of the detenue illegal-Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, Ss.4(1)(i) and
F 4(1-A).

Appellant's mother was in judicial remand in connection with a case
filed under sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,
1937 when the detention order was served on her under Section 3 of the
G Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Of-
fenders, Forest- Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic-Offenders and
Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982. The detenue filed a writ petition before the High ·f
Court challenging her detention, which was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the detenue was
H denied the right to make effective representation as 1Jrder of remand to
104
POWANAMMALv. STATE 105
judicial custody relied upon in the grounds of detention was passed in A
English but the Tamil version of the document was not supplied to the
detenue even though she specifically demanded the same as she did not
know English at all and, therefore, prejudice was caused to the detenue.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that since the grounds.
of detention and the said document were translated and explained in Tamil B
to the detenue, no prejudice was caused to her in making· an effective
representation due to not supply of the Tamil version of the remand order.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
c
(Per Quadri, J. for himself and Thomas, J.)

, HELD : 1.1. The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5)
extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the
material in support thereof in the language understood by the detenue but
...i,. also to supplying their translation in script or language which is under- D
standable to the detenue. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the
· right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the oppor-
tunity of making a representation against the order. [108-G-H; 109-A]

Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, [1969] 1 SCR 227, E
relied on.

1.2. However, there is a distinction between a document, which has
been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention,
and a document whicl) finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention.
Whereas non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds F
of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenue
need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because
non-supply of such a document would am1mnt to denial of the right of
being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of
making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be G
so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention
or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenue's complaint of
non-supply of the document has to be supported by prejudice caused to
him in making effective representation. What applies to a document, would
equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A language known to and understood by the detenue, should tlie document
be in a d.ifferent language. [109-B-D]

2. In the present case, the appellant has made a representation for
supply of the Tamil version of the copy of order of remand and specifically
stated that the detenue could not understand the English language. Ad-
B mittedly, the Tamil version of order of remand was not furnished to her.
A perusal of the grounds shows that the order of remand was relied upon
by t~e second respondent to reach subjective satisfaction, and so the
detenue need not show that any prejudice was caused to her due to
non-supply of the Tamil version of order of remand. Therefore, non-supply
C of the Tamil version of the English document on the facts and circumstan-
ces, renders her continued detention illegal. [111-F-H]

Chaju Ram v. State of J & K, [1970] 1 SCC 536; Mst. L.M.S. Ummu
Saleema v. Slui B.B. Gujarat, [1981] 3 SCC 317; Prakash Chandra Mehta v.
D Commissioner and Secreta1y, Govemment of Kerala, AIR (1986) SC 687,
Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 176 and Kamarwmissa
v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1640, held inapplicable.

(Per Wadhwa, J., dissenting)

E I. The grounds of detention show that the detaining authority was
aware that the detenue was on remand and that she was likely to be
released on bail and that bail was usually granted by courts in such cases
and on her release on bail she was Likely to indulge in the prejudicial
activities. It 1s not that the order of remand was the basis on which order
F of detention of the detenue under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Goon-
das, Forest-Offenders, Immoral Traffic-Offenders and Slum Grabbers
Act, 1982 was made. [112-C-G]

2. From the record it is apparent that it was not necessary to supply
G to the detenue a copy of the order of remand and that no prejudice has
been caused to the detenue on account of non-supply of the Tamil trans-
lation of the order of remand. In any case the order of remand was
reproduced in the grounds which admittedly were supplied to the detenue
in Tamil and also explained to her. It is, therefore, not possible to agree
H with the view taken by the majority that detention of the detenue is void
POWANAMMALv.STATE [QUADRl,J.] 107

and that it should be quashed. [114-B; 116-A-B] A
Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Govemment
of Kera/a, [1985] Supp. SCC 144, relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
35 of 1999. B
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.98 of the Madras High
Court in H.C.P. No. 659 of 1998.

K.K. Mani for the Appellant.
c
N. Natarajan and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents.

The Judgments of the Court were delivered by

QUADRI, J. Le~ve is granted.
D
The appellant is the mother of the detenue, Smt. Lakshm~ who was
detained by order No. B.D.F.G.l.S. No. 38/98 dated 12th April, 1980,
passed by the second respondent, under Sectiog 3 of the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act,
1982 (for short, "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"). Her challenge to the said E
order in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution HCP No. 659 of
1998, before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras having been
unsuccessful, she is before us by special leave against the order of the High
Court dated October 5, 1998, dismissing the said petition.
F
The detenue was ordered to be detained by the second respondent
on the ground that she was a bootlegger within the meaning of the said Act
and was indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public
health and public order. He referred to four cases filed under Section 4 of
the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 in which she was found guilty and
was fined, Rs. 250 in two cases and Rs. 350 in two cases. On the day when G
she was served with the impugned order of detention, she was in judicial
remand in connection with a case filed under Sections 4(1)(1) and 4(1-A)
of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 which was filed on the allegation
that she was selling liquid in bottles which contained chloral hydrate, 99.2
mg% weight/volume, which was injurious to the health of the consumers. H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A The only ground urged before us by Mr. K.K. Mani, the learned ...
counsel appearing for the appellant, is that the detenue was denied the
right to make effective representation because the order dated 5.4.1998
remanding the detenue to judicial custody relied upon by the second
respondent in the grounds of detention was passed in English but the Tamil
B version of that document was not supplied to her even though she specifi-
cally demanded for the same as she did not know English at all.

Mr. N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil
Nadu, argued that as the grounds of detention and the said document were
translated and explained iri Tamil to the detenue no prejudice was caused
C to her in making an effective representation due to not supplying Tamil
version of the remand order.

The short question that falls for our consideration is whether failure
to supply Tamil version of the order of remand passed in English, a
language not known to the detenue, would vitiate her further detention.
D
The contention of Mr. Mani is founded on clause 5 of Article 22 of
the Constitution of India which reads thus :

11
22(5). When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made
under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority
E making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such
person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall
afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation
against the order."

F It imposes twin obligations on the authority making the order of detention
in respect of a person. They are : (1) to communicate to such person the
grounds on which the order of detention has been made and (2) to afford
him the earliest opportunity of making a representatjon against the order.

The law relating to preventive detention has been crystallized and
G the principles are well neigh settled. The amplitude of the safeguard
embodied in Art. 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the
grounds of detention and the material in support thereof in the language
understood by the detenue but also to supplying their translation in script
or language which is understandable to the detenue. Failure to do so would
H amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of

r
POWANAMMAL v. STATE [QUADRI, J.] 109

being afforded the opportunity of making a represeatation against the A
•j
order. (See Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack & Anr., (1969] 1
SCR 227).

However, this court has maintained a distinction between a docu-
ment which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds
of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds
B
of detention. Whereas non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon
in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued deten-
tion, the detenue need JJ.Ot show that any prejudice is caused to him. This
is because non-supply of ~uch a document would amount to denial of the
right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the oppor- c
tunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would
not· be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of
detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenue's
complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice
caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a
D
..., document, would equally apply to furnishing translated copy of the docu-
ment in the language known to and understood by the detenue, should the
document be in a different language.

In Chaju Ram v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1970] 1 SCC 536,
the order of detention was challenged on the ground, inter alia, that the E
rletenue was not explained of the grounds of his detention in the language
known to him and, therefore, he was deprived of his right of making a
representation. This court held that when dealing with a detenue who could
not read and understand English or any language at all that the grounds
of detention should be explained to him as early as possible in the language F
he understood so that he could avail himself of the statutory right of making
a representation. The contention that the document in English was handed
over to the detenue who affixed his thumb in token of having received it
was held not in compliance with the requirement of law which gave a very
valuable right to the detenue to make a representation which right was
frustrated by handing over to him the grounds of detention in an alien G
language. The above decision is not authority for supporting the conteution
l canvassed by Mr. Natarajan that explaining the contents of the document,
relied upon in the grounds of detention, in the language understood by the
detenue, absolves the detaining authority of the duty to furnish translation
of such document in the language understood by the detenue. H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A The judgment of this Court in Msr. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. Shri
B.B. Gujaral & Ors., [1981] 3 SCC 317 also does not help the respondents
because that case dealt with supply of documents and materials which fine!
a casual or passing reference in the course of narration of facts in the
grounds of detention but are not relied upon by the detaining authorities
B in making the order of detention. We have already held above that not
furnishing copies of such documents would not vitiate the order unless the
detenue shows that he was prejudiced in making an effective representation
due to non-supply of such documents.

Here it will be appropriate to refer to the following decisions :
c
In Prakash Chandra .Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Govem-
ment of Kera/a & Ors., AIR (1986) SC 687, the order of detention was
passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The grievance of the detenue
D was that the grounds of detention were served in English and that the
annexures to the grounds were in Malayalam and that he could understand ...
only Gujarati; so he pleaded that his continued detention was bad. It was
held that it was imperative that the grounds must be communicated in a
language understood by the person concerned so that he could make
effective representation. It was pointed out that the plea that he did not
E know anything except Gujarati was merely the ipse dixit of the detenue and
that the detaining authority came to the conclusion that he knew both
Hindi and English and so averred in his affidavit and the detenue was
merely feigning ignorance of English. On those facts it was held that
communication of the grounds of detention in English and subsequently in
p Hindi was valid and that as the gist of the annexures which were in
Malayalam, had been stated in the grounds of detention, so the detention
was not vitiated. In the instant case there is no such finding of the detaining ·
authoritY about detenue not knowing English. Mentioning about the order
of remand in the grounds, in our view, does not amount to giving the gist
of that document.
G
In Madan Lal Anand v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 176, one of (
the grounds of challenge to the order of detention was non-supply of copies
of documents. The detaining authority relied upon three civil miscellaneous
applications filed in a civil revision petition. Copies of "the miscellaneous
H petitions were supplied to the detenue but the copy of the civil revision

f
POWANAMMALv. STATE [QUADRI,J.] 111

•1 petition in which the miscellaneous petitions were filed, was not furnished. A
It was observed that mentioning of civil revision petition in the grounds of
detention was merely to identify the miscellaneous applications and having
regard to the facts and circumstances of that case the detenue was not
prejudiced due to non-supply of the copies of the documents to him and
further, the other revision petitions, copies of which were not supplied,
B
'¥ were mentioned to point out the fact of shifting of the factory premises
without giving any specific address of the factory and that fact in the
grounds of detention did not necessarily require the detaining authority to
supply copies of the revision petitions. On those facts it was held that
non-supply of the document did not cause any prejudice to him. This case
falls in the aforementioned second category of documents. c
Kamanmnissa v. Union of India, AIR (1991) SC 1640 was also a case
arising under Section 3 of the COFEPSA Act. There the documents that
were not supplied to the detenue were merely referred to in the grounds
of detention and were not relied upon by the detaining auth~rity while
.... D
arriving at the subjective satisfaction. The observation of the court that
mere statement that the documents were not supplied was not sufficient
and that the detenue must show that non-supply of documents has im-
paired his right to make representation, has to be understood having regard
to the fact that the document therein were merely referred to in the
grounds of detention but were not relied upon by the detaining authority E
for reaching subjective satisfaction.

Adverting to the facts of this case, the appellant has made a repre-
sentation for supply of Tamil version of the copy of order of remand and
,. specifically stated that the detenue could not understand the English F
language. Admittedly, the Tamil version of order of remand was not
furnished to her. A perusal of the grounds shows that the order of remand
was relied upon by the second respondent to reach subjective satisfaction,
so the detenue need not show that any prejudice was caused to her due to
non-supply of the Tamil version of order of remand. Therefore, the High
Court is not correct in holding that non-furnishing of the copy of the order G
of remand w~uld not in any way prejudice the detenue.
'
For the above reasons, in our view, non-supply of Tamil version of
English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her
continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The I•
appeal is accordingly allowed.

D.P. WADHWA, J. The only contention raised to challenge the order
of detention is that the detenu was not supplied with the remand order in
Tamil when she was served with the order of detention and the grounds of
B detention. It is not disputed that the detenu was supplied with Tamil
translation of the order, grounds and the documents. Grievance, however,
is that she was not supplied with the Tamil translation of the remand order.

The detenu was arrested nn April 5, 1998 under Section 4(1)(i) and
C Section 4(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu prohibition Act, 1937. She was
produced before the Magistrate on the same day and was remanded till
April 17, 1998. In the narration of events in the grounds of detention it is
stated that the detenue "was produced for remand before the Judicial
Magistra~e Thirukalukundam on 5.4.98 on the same day and she was
D ordered to Qe remanded till 17.4.98 and she was lodged in Special Prison
for Women Vellore". Detaining authority in the grounds then mentions: "I
..
am aware that Thirumathi Lakshmi is in remand and there is imminent
possibility that she may come out on bail for the offence under section
4(1)(i) & 4(1-A) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 by filing bail applica-
tion in the court. I am also aware that in similar cases accused are enlarged
E on bail by the same court or the superior court after lapse of some time,
and if she comes out on bail she will indulge in such further activities in
future as well which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public health
and public order." It only shows that the detaining authority was aware that
the detenue was on remand and that she was likely to be released on bail
F and that bail was usually granted by courts in such cases and on her release
on bail she was likely to indulge in the prejudicial activities. It is not that
the order of remand was the basis on which order of detention of the
detenue under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Forest-offenders, Im-
moral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act 14 of 1982)
G was made. In any case the order of remand was reproduced in the grounds
which admittedly were supplied to the detenue in Tamil and also explained
to her. The remand order itself reads as under :

"Accused produced. No complaint of ill treatment by the Police.
H Remanded till 17.4 .98."

r
POWANAMMAL v. STATE [QUADRI, J.) 113

fl
On notice being issued counter affidavit has been filed by the detain- A
ing authority. With reference to the objection raised by the detenue that
she was not given Tamil version of the order of remand the detaining
authority has replied as under :

"This document (remand order) has been explained in Tamil B
".I to the detenue and there is an endorsement that it has been
explained to her and she has understood the same. Hence it is not
correct to state that the detenue has not understood the contents
of the documents at page 81 namely the remand order. It is further
humbly submitted that generally whenever a person is produced c
before the Trial Court at the time of remand the Learned
Magistrate used to question only in Tamil, which is the official
Language of Tamil Nadu Government. Then the learned

- ... Magistrate will remand a per~on and will inform the date of
remand to the person remanded before him. I further humbly
submit the averment "no complaint of ill-treatment by Police" in
D
the remand order itself clearly shows that it is not the word of the
Learned Trial Magistrate of his own. The Learned Trial Magistrate
has put the question to the detenue in Tamil whether the person
was ill- treated. The reply given by the person has been recorded
in the remand order. The reply has been incorporated in the E
remand order itself as "no complaint of ill-treatment". Hence the
above said endorsement of the Learned Trial Magistrate in the
remand order will clearly show and prove that the detenue under-
stood the proceedings before the Trial Court at the time of remand
"Y and she understood the same also. Hence the non furnishing the F
copy of the remand order in Tamil Language to the detenue will
not cause any prejudice to the detenu in making an effective
representation. It is further humbly submitted that the detenue
herself appeared before the Advisory Board personally. In the
representation dated 18.5.98 given before the Advisory Board she G

-- '
has not stated that she did not understand the contents of the
documents namely the remand order dated 5.4.98. She has not
made any grievance even before the honourable advisory Board..
Hence it has to be presumed that she knew very well that she was
remanded till 17.4.98 and she has not made any complaint against H
·1
...
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A the police at the time of remand. Hence non furnishing of the copy ~·
of the remand order in Tamil will not cause any prejudice to the
detenue."

The detenue did not choose to file any rejoinder to the counter
affidavit filed by the detaining authority though opportunity was granted to
B her. From the record it is apparent that it was not necessary to supply to ,.
the detenue a copy of the order of remand and that no prejudice has been
caused to the detenue on account of non-supply of Tamil translation of the
order of r~mand. As rightly pointed out by the detaining authority that not
only that the remand order which finds mention in the grounds which were
c given to the detenue in Tamil, the Magistrate also did tell the detenue of
the order of remanding her. It may be noticed that the grounds recite that
the detenue had earlier on four different occasions been convicted under
Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.

In Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissi011er and Secretary, Govern-
D
ment of Kera/a and Others, [1985] Supp. SCC 144, while Hindi translation
...
of the grounds of detention was served on the detenue there were six
annexures which were supplied to the detenue and were in Malayalam. The
detenue did not know the Malayalam language. It was, therefore, con-
tended that there was violation of the provisions of Article 22 of the
E Constitution inasmuch as grounds were not communicated to the detenue
in a language understood by him. The Court said : "The Constitution
requires that the grounds must be communicated. Therefore it must follow '
~
as an imperative that the grounds must be communicated in a language
understood by the person concerned so that he can make effective repre-
F sentation". The Court further said that it was a salutary principle to be kept
in mind that "there is no rule of law that commonsense should be put in
cold storage while considering constitutional provisions for safeguards
against misuse of powers by authorities though these constitutional
provisions should be strictly construed". In a writ petition challenging the ·
detention on behalf of the detenue it was contended that the detenue did
G not understand English or Hindi or Malayalam and that he did understand
only Gujarati language. This Court repelled this contention and observed ·(
that gist of the annexures which was given in Malayalam language had been
stated in the grounds. The detaining authority had come to the conclusion
that the detenue knew both Hindi and English. The Court rejected other
H grounds· of attack to the detention which was under the Conservation of
POWANAMMALv. STATE [QUADRI,J.] 115

Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. I am A
tempted to quote the following observations in the judgment (see paras 82
and 83) :-

"Preventive detention unlike punitive det~ntion which is to punish
for the wrong done, is to protect the society by preventing wrong
B
being done. Though such powers must be very cautiously exercised
;. not to undermine the fundamental freedoms guaranted to our
people, the procedural safeguards have to be ensured that, yet
these must be looked at from a pragmatic and commonsense point
of view. The exercise of the power of preventive detention must
be strictly within the safeguards provided. We are governed by the c
Constitution and our Constitution embodies a particular
philosophy of government and a way of life and that nece·ssarily
requires understanding between those who exercise powers and
the people over whom or in respect of whom such power is
exercised. The purpose of exercise of all such powers by the D
Government must be to promote common well-being and must be
to subserve the common good. It is necessary to protect therefore
the individual rights insofar as practicable which are not inconsis-
tent with the security and well-being of the society. Grant of power
imposes limitation on the use of the power. There are various E
procedural safeguards and we must construe those in proper light
and from pragmatic commonsense point of view. We must remem-
ber that observance of written law about the procedural safeguards
for the protection of the individual is normally the high duty of
public official but in all circumstances not the highest. The law of F
-~
self preservation and protection of the country and national

' security may claim in certain circumstances higher priority.

83. As has been set out by Thomas Jefferson "To lose our country
by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law G
itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying
them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means
"(Thomas Jefferson, Writings (Washington Ed.) v. 542-545 and The
Constitution Between Friends by Louis Fisher 47.) By the aforesaid
approach both justice and power can be brought together and H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A whatever is just may be powerful and whatever may be powerful
may be just."

In this view of the matter I find myself unable to agree with the view
taken by my learned Brat.her Justice Quadri that detention of the detenue
[
is void and that it should be quashed. Procedural safeguards have been
B complied with. I would, therefore, rather dismiss the appeal.

In view of the majority decision the Appeal is allowed.
' '

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.

I'

f