Preventive detention translations must be materially accurate, but minor discrepancies will not invalidate the order where independent grounds remain.

In preventive detention, translated copies of the relied-upon documents must be true and sufficiently accurate to enable an effective representation, but minor or inconsequential discrepancies do not vitiate the order. The Bombay HC treated the differences in the Marathi translations of the medical certificates and bail application as typographical or insignificant, with no material prejudice to the detenu's defence. The Court also applied severability: even if some translated material were defective, the detention order would survive where independent incidents, recoveries, arrests, and other untainted grounds independently supported the requisite subjective satisfaction. The detention order was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether discrepancies between the English documents relied upon for detention and their Marathi translations supplied to the detenu vitiated the detention order by infringing the right to make an effective representation. (ii) Whether, even assuming defects in some translated documents, the detention order could still be sustained on the remaining material under the severability rule.

Issue (i): Whether discrepancies between the English documents relied upon for detention and their Marathi translations supplied to the detenu vitiated the detention order by infringing the right to make an effective representation.

Analysis: The governing principle is that the detenu must be furnished with the grounds of detention and the relied-upon documents in a language he understands, and the translations must be true and correct enough to enable an effective representation. However, not every variation between the original and translated documents is fatal. Minor, inconsequential, or innocuous discrepancies that do not bear materially on the grounds of detention or the detenu's ability to respond do not amount to non-compliance with constitutional safeguards. On the facts, the discrepancies in the medical certificates and the bail application were treated as typographical, elaborative, or insignificant, and not as distortions going to the substance of the grounds.

Conclusion: The discrepancies in the translated documents did not vitiate the detention order and did not, by themselves, infringe the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

Issue (ii): Whether, even assuming defects in some translated documents, the detention order could still be sustained on the remaining material under the severability rule.

Analysis: Where an order of detention rests on multiple grounds, defective material relating to one ground does not necessarily invalidate the entire order if the remaining grounds and supporting material independently justify detention. The severability principle applies so that the order survives when sufficient untainted material supports the requisite subjective satisfaction. Here, apart from the challenged documents, the grounds of detention contained independent incidents, recoveries, arrests, and other material sufficient to sustain the order. The challenged documents were therefore not decisive to the detention decision.

Conclusion: The detention order was sustainable on the remaining independent material, and the defects alleged in some translations did not invalidate it.

Final Conclusion: The detention order was upheld because the translation discrepancies were not materially prejudicial and the remaining grounds independently supported the requisite satisfaction for preventive detention.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, translated copies must be true and correct enough to afford an effective representation, but only material discrepancies that prejudice that right or affect the grounds of detention will vitiate the order; if sufficient independent and untainted grounds remain, the order survives under severability.

---