TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Detention Order Upheld under Maharashtra Act | Document Translation Clarification</h1> <h3>Shri Izaz Rashid Baig @ Ajju Versus Shri R.H. Mendonca,</h3> Shri Izaz Rashid Baig @ Ajju Versus Shri R.H. Mendonca, - TMI Issues:Challenge to detention order under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 - Legality of detention order - Illegible copies of vital documents supplied to petitioner-detenu - Translation of documents not provided in English - Right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India.Analysis:1. The petitioner-detenu challenged the detention order dated 7-11-1998 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The detention order was based on prejudicial activities detailed in two C.Rs. and in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. The petitioner's counsel raised grounds of illegible copies of vital documents and lack of English translation of Hindi parts in documents provided to the detenu, affecting his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of The Constitution of India.2. The first ground raised was regarding illegible copies of vital documents supplied to the petitioner-detenu, impairing his right to make an effective representation. The Detaining Authority refuted this claim, stating that the petitioner-detenu did not specify which documents were illegible. The petitioner's counsel pointed out an illegible part in a panchanama dated 19-6-1998, but the original document was found to be clear. The court rejected this ground, noting the lack of evidence to support the claim of illegibility.3. The second ground raised concerned the absence of English translation of Hindi parts in documents provided to the detenu. The Detaining Authority denied this claim, stating the translation was supplied. The petitioner's counsel highlighted specific documents with untranslated parts, but the respondents argued that since the detenu understood Hindi, no prejudice was caused. The court agreed with the respondents, emphasizing that the detenu's ability to understand Hindi mitigated the need for translations, thus rejecting this ground as well.4. The court clarified that the mere absence of translation of a document in an unfamiliar language or an illegible document would not invalidate a detention order. The detention order would only be vitiated if the lack of translation or illegibility pertained to vital documents affecting the detenu's right to make an effective representation. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, upholding the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981.5. In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of ensuring that detenus have access to translations of vital documents and clear copies to facilitate their right to make effective representations. The judgment highlights the significance of providing detenus with necessary documentation in a comprehensible manner to uphold their legal rights during detention proceedings.
TaxTMI 