Detention and effective representation rights: illegible or untranslated documents matter only if they cause prejudice under Article 22(5).

A detention order is not vitiated by supply of an illegible copy of a document or by omission of English translation of portions in Hindi or Marathi unless the defect concerns a vital document and prejudices the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). Where the original document is clear, the alleged illegibility is not established, and where the detenu understands the language used or the untranslated portion does not affect the ability to represent effectively, no constitutional breach arises. The operative test is prejudice to the representation right, not mere absence of translation or copy quality.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether supply of an allegedly illegible copy of a vital document impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether non-supply of English translation of portions of documents containing Hindi or Marathi text violated the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether supply of an allegedly illegible copy of a vital document impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The document relied upon by the detenu was examined against the original panchanama and found to be clear in the original form. The grievance related only to a xerox copy annexed to the petition, while the record showed that the detenu had received the panchanama. In the absence of proof that the supplied copy of the vital document was illegible, no breach of the constitutional safeguard was established.

Conclusion: The contention failed and the challenge on this ground was rejected against the detenu.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of English translation of portions of documents containing Hindi or Marathi text violated the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: One document contained Hindi text, but the detenu had acknowledged understanding Hindi, English and Urdu, and no prejudice was shown. In the other document, the omitted portion was in Marathi and its English meaning did not bear on the detenu's ability to make an effective representation. Mere absence of translation, without impairment of the right to representation, was held insufficient to vitiate detention.

Conclusion: The contention failed and the challenge on this ground was rejected against the detenu.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld, as no violation of the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: A detention order is not vitiated by an illegible or untranslated document or part thereof unless the document is vital and the defect prejudices the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

---