Detention order set aside for delayed representation disposal and defective translation in gold smuggling case

The Madras HC allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging detention for gold smuggling from Sri Lanka. The court found the detention order was served belatedly and contained defective translation. A seven-day delay by the detaining authority in forwarding the petitioner's representation to the sponsoring authority was inadequately explained, with respondents citing translation requirements and holidays. The HC held that unexplained delays in disposing representations breach constitutional imperatives, rendering continued detention illegal. The court emphasized that procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases must be strictly observed to balance executive powers, and set aside the detention order for denial of constitutional guarantees.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in serving the detention order and grounds of detention.
2. Defective translation of the grounds of detention.
3. Non-forwarding of representation to the Advisory Board.
4. Delay in forwarding the representation to the sponsoring authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Serving the Detention Order and Grounds of Detention:
The petitioner argued that the detention order dated 21.09.2023 was not served on the detenu on the same day of arrest, i.e., 27.09.2023, but was served only on 30.09.2023. The court found that the detenu was served with the detention order within a reasonable period of three days, which does not constitute an inordinate delay. The delay in serving the Tamil version of the reply from the second respondent on 9.11.2023 was deemed non-prejudicial as it was not essential for the petitioner to make an effective representation.

2. Defective Translation of the Grounds of Detention:
The petitioner claimed that the Tamil version of the grounds of detention had errors, particularly in translating the word "representation," which misled the petitioner. The court noted that although the word "gpujpepjpj;Jtj;ij" was used instead of the correct term "KiwaPL," the petitioner was not misled as she had submitted her representation. However, the court found another significant translation error regarding the address of the State Advisory Board, which led to the return of the petitioner's representation with the postal endorsement "no such person."

3. Non-forwarding of Representation to the Advisory Board:
The court observed that the representation dated 29.09.2023, sent by the petitioner to the third respondent, was not placed before the Advisory Board. The court emphasized that even if the representation sought grounds of detention and booklet, it contained an allegation against the detaining authority, which should have been disclosed to the Advisory Board. The failure to do so was deemed significant, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Golam Biswas vs. Union of India (2015) 16 SCC 177, which mandates forwarding such representations to the Advisory Board.

4. Delay in Forwarding the Representation to the Sponsoring Authority:
The representation dated 20.10.2023 was received by the detaining authority on 10.11.2023 and forwarded to the sponsoring authority only on 17.11.2023, resulting in a delay of seven days. The court found the explanation for this delay, which included intervening holidays, insufficient. It emphasized that preventive detention cases require timely and expeditious handling, as highlighted in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur (2021) 20 SCC 98. The court concluded that the delay was not properly explained and constituted a breach of the constitutional imperative for timely consideration of representations.

Conclusion:
The court held that the detention order was liable to be set aside due to the defective translation of the grounds of detention, non-forwarding of the representation to the Advisory Board, and the unexplained delay in forwarding the representation to the sponsoring authority. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detenu was ordered to be released unless required in connection with any other case.

---