Translation discrepancy in detention grounds can defeat the right to an effective representation and invalidate preventive detention.

A material inconsistency between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention can vitiate a preventive detention order where it denies the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5). Here, the English text suggested a likelihood of reverting to prejudicial activity after bail, while the Hindi version conveyed a different basis tied to custody and possible release under ordinary law. The court held that such conflicting translations were capable of confusing the detenu about the real grounds of detention and therefore impaired the constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether a material discrepancy between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention vitiated the detention order by denying the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention grounds supplied to the detenu contained a statement in English that, after availing bail and remaining at large, he was likely to revert to prejudicial activities, whereas the Hindi translation conveyed a materially different basis by indicating custody, non-release on bail in the cited cases, and a possibility of release under ordinary law. In a habeas corpus matter, strict rules of pleadings do not apply where the necessary material is on record, and a ground not specifically pleaded may still be examined. The inconsistent translations were capable of confusing the detenu as to the true basis of detention and thereby impairing his ability to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The discrepancy was held to have infringed the detenu's right under Article 22(5), and the detention order was invalid.

---