Preventive detention and effective representation: supplying grounds in an unreadable language breached Article 22(5) and invalidated detention.

A preventive detention order was invalid where the grounds and supporting documents were supplied in a language the detenu could not read or write. The Court held that Article 22(5) requires not merely oral familiarity with a language, but effective communication of the material so the detenu can make a meaningful representation. Since the detenu stated he understood only Tamil and could not read or write Hindi, English or Marathi, supplying documents in Hindi without proper explanation did not satisfy the constitutional safeguard. The detention order was therefore quashed for breach of Article 22(5).

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was vitiated because the grounds and documents were supplied in a language the detenu could not read or write, thereby denying him an effective opportunity of representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detenu stated that he was only conversant with Tamil and could not read or write Hindi, English, or Marathi. Although the respondent asserted that the documents were supplied in Hindi because the detenu understood that language, the Court held that mere supply of documents in a language known orally is not compliance if the detenu cannot read or write it. In such a situation, supply without explanation does not enable an effective representation and amounts to denial of the constitutional safeguard.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated for of Article 22(5) and was quashed.

---