Detention order quashed for language violation under Article 22(5) - Detenu to be released.

The court quashed the detention order dated 05.06.2020 as it was not served in a language understood by the detenu, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the detenu was directed to be released from preventive detention unless required in another case. The court allowed the habeas corpus petition and disposed of the case with these directions.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Alleged illegal detention under COFEPOSA Act.
2. Validity of the detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
3. Language of communication of the grounds of detention.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements for preventive detention.

Detailed Analysis

1. Alleged Illegal Detention Under COFEPOSA Act
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking a habeas corpus direction for the production of her son, who she alleges has been illegally detained by the respondents. The Ministry's case against the petitioner’s son involves specific intelligence about smuggling activities, leading to his apprehension and subsequent preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act.

2. Validity of the Detention Order Under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
The impugned detention order dated 05.06.2020 was confirmed by the Ministry on 11.08.2021. The petitioner challenged the detention order on the grounds that it violates Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution due to non-compliance with the procedure established by law. The court emphasized the constitutional requirement under Article 22(5) that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu in a language he understands to enable him to make an effective representation against the order.

3. Language of Communication of the Grounds of Detention
The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were not communicated in a language understood by the detenu, thereby violating Article 22(5). The detenu, Harmeet Singh, primarily understands Hindi and Punjabi, and the detention order was served in English. The court noted that merely signing documents in English does not imply sufficient understanding of the language. The court relied on several judicial precedents, including Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India, which emphasize that the grounds of detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Preventive Detention
The court discussed the procedural requirements under Article 22(5) and relevant judicial precedents. It concluded that the detaining authority failed to provide the grounds of detention in a language understood by the detenu, thereby violating his fundamental rights. The court observed that the detenu had expressly requested translations of the grounds of detention, which were not provided. This non-compliance rendered the detention order constitutionally invalid.

Conclusion
The court held that the detention order dated 05.06.2020 was not served upon the detenu in a language he understands, violating the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5). Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released from preventive detention unless required in any other case. The habeas corpus petition was allowed and disposed of with these directions.

---