Preventive detention notices must match across translations; material inconsistencies can defeat the right to an effective representation.

Article 22(5) requires the grounds of preventive detention to be communicated in a manner that enables an effective representation. Minor translation differences or clerical omissions may be ignored, but material inconsistencies between English and Hindi versions, especially in core facts and particulars such as names, numbers, dates, or descriptions, can confuse and prejudice the detenu. Where the discrepancies are substantial and capable of misleading the detenu in preparing a representation, the detention order becomes unsustainable. The text states that the Delhi High Court treated the variations as material, found the right to an effective representation violated, and held that the detention order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether substantial variations and omissions between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention deprived the detenu of an effective opportunity to make a representation and thereby vitiated the detention order.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention be communicated in a manner that enables an effective representation. Minor omissions or clerical differences may be ignored, but omissions that touch the core facts, or contradictions in material particulars such as names, numbers, dates, and descriptions, can create confusion and prejudice the detenu. In preventive detention matters, accuracy and parity between translated versions are essential because the right to challenge detention is a valuable constitutional protection. On the facts, the discrepancies were not trivial; they related to significant particulars and were capable of misleading the detenu in preparing his representation.

Conclusion: The substantial variations between the two versions of the grounds of detention violated the detenu's right to make an effective representation and rendered the detention order unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was quashed and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in some other case.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, material inconsistencies between communicated versions of the grounds that are capable of causing confusion or prejudice infringe the constitutional right to an effective representation and vitiate the detention.

---