https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175332 A material inconsistency between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention can vitiate a preventive detention order where it denies the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5). Here, the English text suggested a likelihood of reverting to prejudicial activity after bail, while the Hindi version conveyed a different basis tied to custody and possible release under ordinary law. The court held that such conflicting translations were capable of confusing the detenu about the real grounds of detention and therefore impaired the constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention invalid. en-us Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2015 14:52:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175332 A material inconsistency between the English and Hindi versions of the grounds of detention can vitiate a preventive detention order where it denies the detenu an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5). Here, the English text suggested a likelihood of reverting to prejudicial activity after bail, while the Hindi version conveyed a different basis tied to custody and possible release under ordinary law. The court held that such conflicting translations were capable of confusing the detenu about the real grounds of detention and therefore impaired the constitutional right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention invalid. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175332