New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday said that a detenu has the fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to know the grounds of his detention and such communication has to be furnished to him in a language that he understands. A bench headed by Justice Siddharth Mridul clarified that merely because a detenu is able to sign or write a few words in English or any other language, would not mean that he is 'conversant with the language'.
Whether he has sufficient working knowledge has to be examined in each case and it would always be the safer course to furnish translations of the grounds of detention and the documents that are relied upon in the language that a detenu understands, stated the bench also comprising Justice Anup J Bhambhani. As far as the documents that are only referred-to in a detention order are concerned, the detenu must show the prejudice being caused to him by their non-supply in making an effective representation, it added.
The court, which was dealing with a habeas corpus petition against the allegedly illegal preventive detention of the petitioner's son under the anti-smuggling law, also said that the purpose of Article 22(5) is not served if the grounds of detention are only verbally explained and nothing in writing is left with the detenu in a language which he understands. In the order, the court further noted that if a detenu is illiterate, the Supreme Court has held that it would be sufficient if the grounds of detention are explained to him in a language that he understands. A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that the grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be; and that he be afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the detention order at the earliest, the court said in the order.
In the present case, the court ruled that the detention of the petitioner's son, who was a class 10 drop-out and attended a Hindi-medium school, fell foul of the constitutional mandate as the detention order was not communicated to him in a language that he understood. Merely because a detenu is able to sign or write a few words in English or any other language, does not mean that the detenu is 'conversant with the language', since the detenu may yet not be able to effectively understand the contents of the grounds of detention and the relied-upon documents, to be able to make an effective representation against the detention order, the court said.
Communicating the grounds of detention effectively and fully to a detenu implies that the grounds must be furnished to him in a language which the detenu understands; and if that entails the translation of the grounds to such language, then that is part of the Constitutional mandate, it added. The court quashed the detention order and directed that the petitioner's son be released from preventive detention forthwith unless required in any other case.
PTI
