Preventive detention communication requires grounds in an understood language; oral explanation alone is insufficient and detention became illegal.

Article 22(5) requires the grounds of preventive detention to be communicated in a manner that gives the detenu real and effective knowledge of the basis of detention so a meaningful representation can be made. Service of the grounds in English was not enough where the detenu was not shown to understand English, and an oral Hindi explanation by the serving officer did not cure the defect, especially because the grounds were detailed and numerous. The constitutional requirement of communication was therefore not met, and the detention was held illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the grounds of detention in English, accompanied only by an oral Hindi translation or explanation, satisfied the constitutional requirement of communication under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India so as to enable an effective representation against preventive detention.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard in Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention be communicated in a manner that gives the detenu real and effective knowledge of the basis of detention. Mere physical delivery of the order and grounds in English is insufficient where the detenu is not shown to understand English. Oral explanation by the serving officer does not amount to adequate communication when the grounds are numerous and detailed, because the detenu must receive the grounds in a language and script he can understand in order to exercise the right of representation meaningfully.

Conclusion: The requirement of communication under Article 22(5) was not satisfied, and the detention was illegal.

---