1991 (7) TMI 381 - HC - Indian Laws

Detention order upheld despite translation discrepancies

Nandkumar Alias Nandu Versus S. Ramamurthi, Commissioner Of

The court upheld the detention order challenged under the National Security Act, 1980. Despite discrepancies between English documents and Marathi ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the detention order under the National Security Act, 1980.2. Discrepancies between the original English documents and their Marathi translations.3. Impact of discrepancies on the right to make an effective representation.4. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Detention Order:The petitioner challenged his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, dated January 14, 1991. The previous detention order dated August 9, 1990, was revoked on January 11, 1991. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention along with the impugned order.2. Discrepancies Between English Documents and Marathi Translations:The petitioner argued that discrepancies between the original English documents and their Marathi translations prejudicially affected his right to make an effective representation against his detention. The discrepancies were found in five documents: four medical certificates and one application for the reduction of bail amount. Examples include:- Medical Certificate dated April 19, 1990: The bracketed portion and the description of injuries were not accurately translated.- Medical Certificate dated January 17, 1990: Abbreviated forms in English were not used in Marathi translation, and there were typographical errors.- Medical Certificate dated December 21, 1989: The bracketed portion was omitted in the Marathi translation.- Medical Certificate dated September 11, 1989: The date and certain injury descriptions were inaccurately translated.- Application for Reduction of Bail dated April 11, 1990: Certain endorsements and descriptions were missing in the English version.3. Impact of Discrepancies on the Right to Make an Effective Representation:The court analyzed whether these discrepancies were significant enough to affect the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. It was concluded that the discrepancies were minor and did not materially affect the petitioner's rights. The court held that the discrepancies were not on any material point between the original documents and their translations.4. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India:The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments to determine the impact of discrepancies on procedural safeguards:- In Kirit Kumar Chamanlal Kundaliya v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the detaining authority must supply documents referred to in the grounds of detention.- In Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for true and correct translations of documents relied upon by the detaining authority.- In Manjit Singh Grewal alias Gogi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that illegible copies of documents violated constitutional safeguards.- In Mrs. Tsering Dolkar v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court held that documents must be supplied in the language known to the detenu.- In Ibrahim Ahmed Batti v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that delay in supplying translated documents violated Article 22(5).The court concluded that the discrepancies in the translations did not amount to non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5). The court also noted that even if the translations were defective, the remaining material was sufficient for the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.Conclusion:The petition was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld. The court held that the discrepancies in the translations were minor and did not affect the petitioner's right to make an effective representation. The procedural safeguards were deemed to have been complied with, and the detention order remained valid.