TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether detention was vitiated for failure to supply the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenu, and for not proving that they had been properly explained or translated to him. (ii) Whether the detaining authority's failure to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government violated the detenu's right to have the representation considered.
Issue (i): Whether detention was vitiated for failure to supply the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenu, and for not proving that they had been properly explained or translated to him.
Analysis: The right to be communicated the grounds of detention under Article 22(5) is not satisfied by a bare assertion that the grounds were orally explained. Where the grounds are in a language not understood by the detenu, the record must show that an intelligible translation or explanation was actually furnished. In the absence of an affidavit from the person who allegedly translated or explained the grounds, and without any contemporaneous record or translated script, the constitutional safeguard cannot be treated as complied with.
Conclusion: The detention was held invalid on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the detaining authority's failure to forward the detenu's representation to the Central Government violated the detenu's right to have the representation considered.
Analysis: Section 11 confers on the detenu a substantive right to have his representation placed before the Central Government for consideration. That obligation is not displaced merely because the detenu may also have sent a copy of the representation directly to the Central Government. The detaining authority remains bound to forward the representation when a specific request is made.
Conclusion: The detention was held invalid on this ground as well.
Final Conclusion: The continued detention was declared legally unsustainable for non-compliance with the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is invalid where the detenu is not effectively communicated the grounds in a language understood by him, and where the detaining authority fails to forward his representation to the Central Government when the statute requires such consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
