Preventive detention order vitiated by inconsistent detention grounds and translations, defeating the right to an effective representation.

A preventive detention order under the COFEPOSA Act was held vitiated where the English and Gurmukhi versions of the order and the grounds of detention materially differed. The mismatch between the stated basis for detention and the recorded grounds created confusion about whether the alleged conduct involved smuggling, concealment, transportation, or dealing in smuggled goods. That inconsistency was found to have impaired the detenu's constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation, and the order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a detention order under preventive detention law was vitiated because the English and Gurmukhi versions of the detention order and grounds of detention materially differed, thereby denying the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Gurmukhi version stated that detention was necessary to prevent smuggling of goods and abetting smuggling, while the grounds recorded satisfaction for preventing concealment, transportation, and dealing in smuggled goods. The mismatch between the versions and between the detention order and the grounds created confusion as to the real basis of detention and impaired the detenu's ability to make an effective representation.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated for denial of the constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and was liable to be quashed, in favour of the appellant.

---