Preventive detention communication must be in a language understood by the detenu; English-only papers invalidated the detention order.

Article 22(5) requires grounds of preventive detention and the relied-upon material to be communicated effectively in a language the detenu understands, so that he has a real opportunity to make a representation. Mere oral explanation is insufficient where the written language is not understood, and limited ability to sign or make isolated English endorsements does not establish meaningful comprehension. On the facts, the detenu had a Hindi-medium educational background, gave statements in Hindi, and sought Hindi or Punjabi translations of the detention papers; English copies alone were therefore not adequate communication. The detention order was held invalid for breach of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5).

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated for failure to communicate the grounds of detention and the relied-upon material to the detenu in a language understood by him, thereby infringing Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires that a detenu be communicated the grounds of detention effectively and in a manner enabling a real opportunity to make a representation. The governing principle is that mere oral explanation is insufficient where the detenu does not understand the written language of the grounds, and that relied-upon documents must also be supplied in a language understood by the detenu. Ability to sign, write a few words, or make isolated English endorsements does not by itself establish meaningful comprehension of English for preventive detention purposes. On the facts, the detenu had studied in a Hindi-medium environment, had given some statements in Hindi, and specifically requested Hindi or Punjabi translations of the detention papers. The materials showed that English copies were not a sufficient communication to him for the purposes of Article 22(5).

Conclusion: The detention order was held to be invalid as it was not communicated to the detenu in a language he understood, and the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) was breached.

---