Preventive detention communication and representation rules: effective understanding, prompt disposal, and no separate duty for Advisory Board letters.

Preventive detention is not vitiated where the grounds and relied-upon documents are effectively communicated to the detenu in a language he understands, even without a written Bengali translation, if the record shows workable knowledge of English and oral explanation in Bengali. Delay in deciding a repetitive representation raising no new ground is not fatal when the administrative process is prompt and the delay is not inordinate or unexplained. A representation addressed only to the Advisory Board does not, by itself, create a separate obligation for the detaining authority or the Central Government to decide it when no copy was served on them. The record also showed that relevant materials were placed before the detaining authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the detention order was liable to be quashed for non-supply of Bengali translations of the detention order and relied upon documents; (ii) whether there was unexplained delay in deciding the detenu's representation dated 05.02.2015; (iii) whether the detaining authority and the Central Government were obliged to decide the representation addressed only to the Advisory Board; and (iv) whether the detention order was invalid for alleged non-placement of all material documents before the detaining authority.

Issue (i): whether the detention order was liable to be quashed for non-supply of Bengali translations of the detention order and relied upon documents.

Analysis: The requirement under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is that the grounds of detention must be effectively communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him. On the facts, the detenu had acknowledged receipt of the documents in English, endorsed that the papers were read over and explained to him in Bengali, signed English endorsements, and the record showed that English was one of the subjects studied by him. The Court treated these circumstances as showing a workable knowledge of English, and held that mere absence of a Bengali written translation did not vitiate detention where the substance of the grounds had been communicated effectively.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of non-communication in a language understood by the detenu failed.

Issue (ii): whether there was unexplained delay in deciding the detenu's representation dated 05.02.2015.

Analysis: Delay in considering a representation can vitiate detention if it is inordinate and unexplained, but the time taken must be assessed in context. The representation in question was a third representation, repeated the earlier grievance about language, raised no fresh ground, and moved through the administrative channel promptly with specific dates recorded in the counter affidavit. In these circumstances, the period taken was not treated as inordinate or unexplained.

Conclusion: The plea of vitiating delay in disposal of the representation was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the detaining authority and the Central Government were obliged to decide the representation addressed only to the Advisory Board.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the situation where a representation is actually served on the detaining authority or the appropriate Government from one where it is merely marked to the Advisory Board. Since the record showed that no copy of the representation was supplied to the Central Government or the detaining authority, and the earlier representation on the same lines had already been decided, no mandatory obligation arose to separately decide the Advisory Board-addressed representation.

Conclusion: The contention that non-disposal of the Advisory Board representation invalidated the detention was rejected.

Issue (iv): whether the detention order was invalid for alleged non-placement of all material documents before the detaining authority.

Analysis: The time-chart showed that the sponsoring authority's documents and clarifications were received and examined before the detention order was issued. The Court found that the record negatived the plea that relevant material was absent when the detention was finalized.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-placement of documents had no merit.

Final Conclusion: The preventive detention order was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is not vitiated where the grounds are effectively communicated in a language the detenu understands, a representation raising no new ground is decided without inordinate delay, and a representation merely addressed to the Advisory Board and not served on the detaining authority or the Government does not create a separate obligation of decision.

---