Preventive detention and detenu representation: failure of the appropriate Government to consider it independently vitiates detention.

Article 22(5) requires effective communication of detention grounds in a language the detenu can understand, but the safeguard is not breached where the record shows sufficient working knowledge of English; on the facts, the detenu had used English in signed documents and interrogation, so this challenge failed. A detenu's representation need not be in any prescribed form, and even a request for translated copies can amount to a representation against detention; the appropriate Government must consider it independently and at the earliest opportunity. Because the Government forwarded the representation but did not consider or dispose of it, the continued detention was vitiated and release was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the detention order was vitiated because the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him. (ii) Whether the detention was illegal because the detenu's representation was not considered by the appropriate Government.

Issue (i): Whether the detention order was vitiated because the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenu in a language understood by him.

Analysis: Article 22(5) requires that the grounds of detention be communicated effectively so as to enable the detenu to make a representation. Communication is not satisfied by a mere formal service of grounds if the detenu cannot understand the language used. At the same time, the Court may examine the surrounding facts to determine whether the detenu had a working knowledge of the language or was feigning ignorance. On the material on record, the detenu had signed documents in English, answered questions in English during interrogation, and raised the complaint only later in his representation.

Conclusion: The detenu had sufficient knowledge of English and there was no violation of Article 22(5) on this ground. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the detention was illegal because the detenu's representation was not considered by the appropriate Government.

Analysis: A detenu's representation need not be in any prescribed form, and even a request for translated copies of the detention order and grounds constitutes a representation against detention. The constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) requires the appropriate Government to consider such representation independently and at the earliest opportunity, irrespective of any reference to the Advisory Board. The record showed that the representation was forwarded but was not considered or disposed of by the appropriate Government.

Conclusion: The failure of the appropriate Government to consider the representation violated Article 22(5) and rendered the continued detention illegal. This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained because the constitutional safeguard relating to consideration of the detenu's representation was not complied with, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

Ratio Decidendi: A detenu's representation against preventive detention must be independently considered by the appropriate Government at the earliest opportunity, and failure to do so vitiates the detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

---