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 quashed due to translation error, detenu's rights upheld.</h1> <h3>Mrs. Fehmida Iqbal Shaikh Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Others</h3> The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition challenging a detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act due to a ... - Issues:Challenge to detention order under M.P.D.A. Act based on discrepancy in translation of grounds of detention.Analysis:The petitioner, identified as the wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order dated 21-4-1999 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detention was based on two criminal records and in camera statements incriminating the detenu. The petitioner's counsel argued that a vital discrepancy in the Hindi translation of the grounds of detention could confuse the detenu in making a representation, thus infringing on his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.The respondents acknowledged the discrepancy but objected to the petitioner raising this issue, citing a previous statement by the petitioner's counsel. The court, after considering the technical submission, referred to Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that strict pleading rules do not apply in habeas corpus petitions. The court overruled the objection and allowed the petitioner to argue the discrepancy in translation.The court noted the significant difference between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention regarding the detenu's bail status and likelihood of engaging in prejudicial activities. Citing a Supreme Court case where a similar discrepancy led to confusion for the detenu, the court concluded that the detenu could have been confused in making a representation. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, directed the detenu's release, and made the rule absolute.In summary, the High Court of Bombay considered the discrepancy in the translation of grounds of detention as a crucial issue affecting the detenu's right to effective representation. Relying on legal precedents and the detenu's potential confusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and ordered the detenu's immediate release unless required in another case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
