https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42432 A preventive detention order was invalid where the grounds and supporting documents were supplied in a language the detenu could not read or write. The Court held that Article 22(5) requires not merely oral familiarity with a language, but effective communication of the material so the detenu can make a meaningful representation. Since the detenu stated he understood only Tamil and could not read or write Hindi, English or Marathi, supplying documents in Hindi without proper explanation did not satisfy the constitutional safeguard. The detention order was therefore quashed for breach of Article 22(5). en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:06:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42432 A preventive detention order was invalid where the grounds and supporting documents were supplied in a language the detenu could not read or write. The Court held that Article 22(5) requires not merely oral familiarity with a language, but effective communication of the material so the detenu can make a meaningful representation. Since the detenu stated he understood only Tamil and could not read or write Hindi, English or Marathi, supplying documents in Hindi without proper explanation did not satisfy the constitutional safeguard. The detention order was therefore quashed for breach of Article 22(5). Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42432