1) By the instant petition, petitioner has sought quashment of the order of detention bearing No.63/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 28.07.2018, passed by
District Magistrate, Baramulla-respondent No.2 herein. In terms of said order, Nasir Ahmad Ganie (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been
taken into preventive custody by invoking powers under clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner projected various grounds but the star ground is that the material which formed base of the grounds of detention
and consequent order of detention has not been furnished to the detenue, besides translated copies of the grounds of detention have not been furnished
to him which disabled him from making an effective and purposeful representation against his detention.
3) The respondents despite opportunity did not produce the detention record to show that the material forming base of the detention has been furnished
to the detenue. Non-supply of the material would amount to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, so deprivation of a valuable right.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment captioned Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors, reported in AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 2184, has held as under:
“27. There were several grounds on which the detention of the detenue was challenged in these appeals but it is not necessary to refer to all the
grounds since on the ground of not supplying the relied upon document, continued detention of the detenue becomes illegal and detention order has to
be quashed on that ground alone.
28. Our Constitution provides adequate safeguards under clauses (5) and (6) of Article 22 to the detenue who has been detained in pursuance of the
order made under any law providing for preventive detention. He has right to be supplied copies of all documents, statements and other materials
relied upon in the grounds of detention without any delay. The predominant object of communicating the grounds of detention is to enable the detenue
at the earliest opportunity to make effective and meaningful representation against his detention.
4) It is quite apposite to quote para 10 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias
Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and othersâ€, (1982) 3 SCC 440:
“10. Two propositions having a bearing on the points at issue in the case before us, clearly merge from the aforesaid resume of decided cases : (a)
all documents, statements and other materials incorporated in the grounds by reference and which have influenced the mind of the detaining authority
in arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds or in any event not later than five days
ordinarily and in the exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than 15 days from the date of his detention and (b)
all such material must be furnished to him in a script or language which he understands and failure to do either of the two things would amount to a
breach of the two duties cast on the detaining authority under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Relying upon this legal position counsel for the
petitioner urged before us that in the instant case a breach of the mandate contained in Article 22 (5) read with Section 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA is
clearly involved because of three things that have happened, namely, (i) supply of Urdu translations of the bulk of documents and statements
incorporated in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority was delayed beyond the normal period of 5 days without any exceptional
circumstances obtaining in the matter, (ii) the alleged exceptional circumstances purporting to justify the delay and the fact that the reasons had been
recorded in writing were not communicated to the detenu which has prevented him from making effective representation against his continued
detention and (iii) Urdu translations of quite a few documents and statements incorporated in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority
have not been supplied to him at all. As regards the first two aspects counsel relied upon two decisions of the Patna High Court, namely, Bishwa
Mohan Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors.(1) and Bishwanath Prasad Keshari v. State of Bihar & Ors.(2) where the Patna High Court has
taken the view that not merely should the exceptional circumstances exist justifying the delayed supply of the grounds of detention but these should be
communicated to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation. Counsel urged that because of the aforesaid failure the continued
detention of the petitioner must be held to be illegal. We find considerable force in these submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.â€
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that that the detenue has also been disabled from making an effective representation by not
supplying him the translated copies of the ground of detention which are in English language besides being in a hyper technical language which the
detenue is not in a position to understand.
6) Nothing has been brought on record to show that the translated copies of the grounds of detention have been supplied to the detenue which has
prejudiced the detenue in the exercise of his right to make an effective representation against his detention. For this, Para 13 of the judgment in
Ibrahim Ahmad Batti’s case (supra) shall be quite apposite to be reproduced herein:
“Lastly, Urdu translations of quite a few documents and statements referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining
authority were admittedly not supplied to the detenu at all and the only explanation given by the counsel for the respondents at the hearing has been
that most of these documents (Urdu translations whereof were not supplied) comprised statements of accounts which had figures in English with
some English words written in capital letters and some documents were in Hindi and Gujarati and the record (statements of Rekha, her sister Indi and
one Jayantilal Soni, all co-conspirators of the detenu, recorded during the investigation) clearly shows that the petitioner knows English figures,
understands English words written in capital letters and can also converse or talk in Hindi and Gujarati and as such the non- supply of Urdu
translations of these documents cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner in the matter of making a representation against his
detention. In our view, the explanation is hardly satisfactory and cannot condone the non-supply of Urdu translations of these documents. Admittedly,
the petitioner is a Pakistani national and Urdu seems to be his mother tongue and a little knowledge of English figures, ability to read English words
written in capital letters and a smattering knowledge of Hindi or Gujarati would not justify the denial of Urdu translations to him of the material
documents and statements referred to as incriminating documents in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective
satisfaction. In fact, the claim made before us on behalf of the detenu that he only knows Urdu cannot be brushed aside as false especially in view of
the fact that the same was accepted on the earlier occasion by the Advisory Board who had actually opined that failure to supply Urdu translations of
grounds of detention and documents had vitiated the earlier order of detention and following this opinion respondent No. 1 had revoked the said order.
Moreover, with the assistance of counsel on either side we have ourselves gone through many of these documents and statements and it is not
possible to say that most of them are merely statements of account containing figures in English with English words written in capital letters. These
documents recovered from three flats in three different societies, include, for instance, documents like bills and vouchers showing purchases made
from some shops, while a large number of documents are in Hindi and Gujarati and relate to transactions in contraband articles like gold, silver,
watches, etc., and comprise accounts of such transactions, the figures as well as recitals pertaining to which are entirely in Gujarati. All these, in our
view, are material documents which have obviously influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction and these are
all in a script or language not understood by detenu, and, therefore, the non-supply of Urdu translations of these documents has clearly prejudiced the
petitioner in the exercise of his right to make an effective representation against his detention and hence the safeguard contained in Article 22(5) is
clearly violated.â€
7) It shall be quite advantageous to quote following para from the judgment rendered in case captioned Powanammal vs. State of T. N. and another
reported in 1999 (2) SCC 413:
“The amplitude of the safeguard embodied in Article 22(5) extends not merely to oral explanation of the grounds of detention and the material in
support thereof in the language understood by the detenue butalso to supplying their translation in script or language which is understandable to the
detenue. Failure to do so would amount to denial of the rights of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a
representation against the order.â€
8) For what has been stated above, petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, being unsustainable, is quashed. Detenue is directed to be set
free from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
9) Petition succeeds, shall, accordingly stand disposed of.
