https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106727 Article 22(5) requires the grounds of preventive detention to be communicated in a manner that enables an effective representation. Minor translation differences or clerical omissions may be ignored, but material inconsistencies between English and Hindi versions, especially in core facts and particulars such as names, numbers, dates, or descriptions, can confuse and prejudice the detenu. Where the discrepancies are substantial and capable of misleading the detenu in preparing a representation, the detention order becomes unsustainable. The text states that the Delhi High Court treated the variations as material, found the right to an effective representation violated, and held that the detention order was liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:29:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106727 Article 22(5) requires the grounds of preventive detention to be communicated in a manner that enables an effective representation. Minor translation differences or clerical omissions may be ignored, but material inconsistencies between English and Hindi versions, especially in core facts and particulars such as names, numbers, dates, or descriptions, can confuse and prejudice the detenu. Where the discrepancies are substantial and capable of misleading the detenu in preparing a representation, the detention order becomes unsustainable. The text states that the Delhi High Court treated the variations as material, found the right to an effective representation violated, and held that the detention order was liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106727