Preventive detention communication in understood language: failure to supply relied-upon translated material invalidated detention under Article 22(5).

Article notes that preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) require the grounds of detention and all relied-upon material to be supplied in a language understood by the detenue so an effective representation can be made. It distinguishes merely referred documents from documents relied upon to reach subjective satisfaction; for relied-upon material, failure to furnish an intelligible copy or translation itself denies the right of representation, and separate proof of prejudice is not required. Applying that principle, the relied-upon remand order was not supplied in Tamil despite a specific request, so the detention was held illegal. A concurring dissent took the view that Tamil explanations were sufficient and no prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-supply of the Tamil translation of the remand order, relied upon in the grounds of detention but originally drawn in English, violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and vitiated the continued detention.

Analysis: The constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention and the material relied upon must be communicated to the detenue in a language understood by her so that she may make an effective representation. A distinction is drawn between documents merely referred to in the grounds and documents relied upon for arriving at subjective satisfaction. For relied-upon documents, non-supply of an intelligible copy or translation itself amounts to denial of the right of representation and prejudice need not be separately proved. On the facts, the remand order was relied upon by the detaining authority, the detenue had specifically requested the Tamil version, and it was not furnished.

Conclusion: The non-supply of the Tamil version of the relied-upon remand order violated Article 22(5) and rendered the detention illegal; the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not stand for breach of the constitutional requirement of effective communication of relied-upon material in a language understood by the detenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a document is relied upon to sustain preventive detention, it must be supplied to the detenue in a language understood by her, and failure to do so invalidates the detention without requiring proof of further prejudice.

Concurring Opinion: One judge dissented, holding that the detention grounds and related material had been sufficiently explained in Tamil, that no prejudice was shown, and that the procedural safeguards had been complied with; on that view, the appeal should have been dismissed.

---