Preventive detention and translation of seized documents: failure to address Gujarati entries vitiated the detention order

Preventive detention may be vitiated where seized documents relied on by the detaining authority contain Gujarati entries and no translation is supplied to the detenu. If the authority understood those writings, that fact should be disclosed; if it did not, translated copies are necessary to ensure meaningful consideration and fairness. Where no return is filed in answer to the challenge, the factual assertion that the authority did not address the language issue may be accepted. On that basis, the detention order was held vitiated and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of preventive detention was vitiated for non-application of mind where certain seized documents contained Gujarati writings and no translation was furnished, and no return was filed in answer to the petition.

Analysis: The detention order was based on material including documents seized from the detenu's premises. Some of those documents contained Gujarati entries. The challenge was that the detaining authority could not be assumed to have understood them, and if it did, that fact should have been disclosed; alternatively, if it did not, translated copies ought to have been supplied to the detenu. In the absence of any return from the detaining authority, the Court accepted the factual assertion in the petition. In detention matters, the authority is expected to act promptly, and the failure to place a return before the Court left the challenge unanswered.

Conclusion: The detention order was held to be vitiated and was quashed.

---