SURJEET SINGH & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                                                                             205

                       SURJEET SINGH & ANR.                                          A
                                   v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                            March 12, 1981

                 [A.D. KOSHAL AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.]
                                                                                     B

      Whet her service 011 the detenu, whose mother tongue is Hindi of the grounds
of detention in English, a language not understood by him, vitiates the deten-
tion-Grounds of detention explained to the detenu in Hindi by the Serving Offi-
 cer-Not enough-Grounds must be supplied in Hindi.

     Allowing the petitions, the Court                                               c
      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 opportu-
nity of making a representation against the order of detention. Their deten-
tion 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          D
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 sueh
grounds could be considered a communication thereof to him. [20SC-D, 208E-G]

      Harikisan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1962] Suppl. 2 SCR 918;
Habibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and Anr, [1969] l SCR 227;
Nainmal Pratap Mal Shah v. Union of India and Ors. [1980] 4 S.C.C. 427,              E
followed.

         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 5931 and 5932 of
 1980.

         (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)
                                                                                     F
         N. M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Petitioners.

      M. K. Banerjee Addi. Sol. Genl., R. N. Poddar and Miss A.
 Subhashini for the Respondents.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                     G
      KosHAL, J. By this order we shall dispose of Criminal Writ
Petitions Nos. 5931 and 5932 of 1980 in each of which the conten-
tion raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the same.

       2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 5931 of 1980, the petitioner                 H
 is one Surjeet Singh while the other petition has been filed by a
 person named Kulwant Singh.
    206                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [1981] 3 s.c.R
A          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 pn 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
B   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
c   has challenged the detention of the two petitioners with th~ conten•
    tion that English was not a language which either of them under-
    stood, 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.

D         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 Maharashtra & Others,(1) Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate,
    Cuttack & Anr.,(') and Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India
    and Otlzers,(3)
E
          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 conti-
F   nued 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 :

G               '·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 circum-
           stances on which the order of detention is based. But to a

H         (1) [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 918.
          (2) [1969] l S.C.R. 227.
          (3) [ 1980] 4 s.c.c. 427.
             SURJEET SINGH   v.   UNION   (Koshal, J.)            207

    person who is not so conversant with the English language,            A
    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              B
    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 freedcm of personal liberty, recognised
    the right of the State to legislate for preventive detention,
    subject to certai_i:i safeguards in favour· of the detained person,
     as laid down in clauses (4) and (5) of article 22. One of            c
    those safeguards is that the detajned 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 the appellant had the opportunity, which the law          D
     contemplates in his favour, of making an effective representa-
     tion 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 Preven-         E
tive Detention Act was impunged 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:
                                                                          F
          "The grounds in support of the order served on the appel-
     lant 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         G
     of a complicated order of the nature made against the appell-
     ant without supplying him the translation in script and langu-
     age 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            H
     against the order."
      208               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (1981) 3 S.C.R.

A             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
 B      that i~ a view ;,hich has been consistently held by this Court.

             6. The facts with which we are here concerned, in so far as
      they are relevantto 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
 c    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.
 D
             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   0
                                                                               •


     · The complicated nature er the length of the document, however,
\E     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
       groui1ds 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.
 F
              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.
 G
      V.D.K.                                               Petitions allowed. ·