Detention order invalidated due to lack of clear documents violating detenu's rights

The court found that the supply of illegible Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) and failure to provide relevant documents in a language understood by the detenu violated the detenu's constitutional rights, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. As a result, the impugned detention order dated 01.02.2022 was invalidated, and the detenu was directed to be released unless needed for another case. The court emphasized the importance of providing clear and translated documents to ensure the detenu's right to make an effective representation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the supply of illegible Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) vitiates the 'subjective satisfaction' of the Detaining Authority, thereby rendering the impugned detention order invalidRs.
2. Whether the detenu's constitutionally secured right of making an effective representation has been jeopardized by the non-supply of relevant documents in a language which the detenu understands, thereby rendering the order of detention illegal and badRs.

Issue-wise Analysis:

Issue 1: Supply of Illegible RUDs and Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority

The court examined whether the supply of illegible RUDs vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. It was observed that several RUDs, both those supplied to the detenu and those on record with the Detaining Authority, were illegible. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in State of Manipur and Others V Buyamayum Abdul Hanan alias Anand and Another, which held that the supply of illegible or blurred copies of documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority amounts to a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court also cited its own decision in Mohd. Nashruddin v. Union of India & Ors., which emphasized that non-supply of legible copies of relevant documents, despite a request, renders the order of detention illegal and bad. Consequently, the court concluded that the illegible RUDs grossly violated the constitutional right of the detenu to make an effective representation, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

Issue 2: Non-Supply of Relevant Documents in a Language Understood by the Detenu

The court considered whether the detenu's right to make an effective representation was jeopardized by the non-supply of relevant documents in a language he understands. The detenu had specifically requested translated copies of documents in his representations dated 25.03.2022 and 15.04.2022. The court noted that the WhatsApp chat (page 58 of the RUDs) was in Chinese, and the detenu's signatures on the document did not imply he understood the contents. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and Chaju Ram vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, which held that grounds of detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands, and oral translation or explanation does not fulfill this requirement. The court emphasized that the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) requires the grounds of detention to be furnished in a language understood by the detenu. The court rejected the respondents' contention that the detenu must show prejudice caused by the non-supply of translated documents, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Mrs. Tsering Dolkar vs. Administrator, Union Territory Of Delhi & Others, which stated that the test is one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act, not prejudice. The court concluded that the non-supply of translated documents vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

Conclusion:

The court held that the Detaining Authority erred in relying on illegible documents and non-translated RUDs, which vitiated the subjective satisfaction required for a valid detention order. Consequently, the impugned detention order was invalidated. The writ petition succeeded, and the detention order dated 01.02.2022 was set aside and quashed. The detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case.

---