Preventive detention translations must be timely and complete to preserve the detenu's right to an effective representation.

Preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) require the detaining authority to supply the detenu, in a language he understands, all grounds and relied-upon materials, including incorporated documents and statements, so that he can make an effective representation. The text states that translation is ordinarily to be furnished within five days and, only for genuine exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within fifteen days. Delay in supplying Urdu translations was found unjustified, and the failure to provide several translated relied-upon documents was treated as prejudicial. The detention was therefore held illegal and the order was quashed for breach of Article 22(5) and section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued preventive detention was vitiated by delay in supplying Urdu translations of the grounds and the documents relied upon, and by non-supply of some translated documents at all, in breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with section 3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires that the detaining authority communicate the grounds of detention and afford the detenu the earliest opportunity to make a representation. That mandate extends to all basic facts and materials relied upon in the grounds, including documents and statements incorporated by reference. Such material must be furnished in a script or language understood by the detenu, ordinarily within five days and, in exceptional circumstances recorded in writing, within fifteen days. The delayed supply of Urdu translations beyond the normal period was not justified by any real exceptional circumstance. The explanation based on the Ramzan period and limited translators was found insufficient, especially where the authority could have arranged translation with greater expedition. The Court further held that the detenu had a right to be informed of the exceptional circumstances and the reasons for delay so that he could make an effective representation before the superior authority or Advisory Board. Non-supply of Urdu translations of several relied-upon documents and statements also prejudiced the detenu, since those materials had influenced the detaining authority and were not shown to have been understood by him.

Conclusion: The detention was illegal because the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) and the statutory requirement under section 3(3) were violated, and the detention order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, all documents and statements relied upon in the grounds must be communicated to the detenu in a language he understands within the prescribed time, and delay beyond the ordinary period is permissible only for genuine exceptional circumstances that must be recorded in writing and effectively conveyed so the detenu can make a meaningful representation.

---