PINALSHAH HAJI JAMALSHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Way back in 1980 the Supreme Court in Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India A.I.R. 1980 Supreme Court 1751 while dealing with a detention order passed by the Government of Gujarat observed that it was necessary to explain the grounds of detention to the detenu in the language known to him. The Supreme Court further impressed upon the Detaining Authority that when the grounds of detention are alleged to have been explained by a Police Officer to the detenu the affidavit of the concerned Police Officer ought to be filed because the Deputy Secretary would not be in a position to state whether or not in fact the grounds of detention were explained to the detenu. In that case also the detenu contended that the detention order and the grounds of detention were furnished to him in a language which he did not understand. This allegation was sought to be countered through the affidavit of Shri P. M. Shahs Deputy Secretary who stated that one Shri A. K. Sharma Police Inspector Ahmedabad had explained to the detenu the order of detention and grounds communicated to him. This affidavit of Shri P. M. Shah was in the opinion of the Supreme Court wholly inadmissible in evidence. It was further pointed out by the Supreme Court that if it was a fact that Inspector Shrama had personally explained the grounds to the detenu then his affidavit ought to have been filed in support thereof. In that case as in the present case no contemporaneous record was produced to show that Inspector Sharma had actually explained or translated the grounds to the detenu. These observations were made as far back as in 1980 and lot the spectacle of the State Government persisting in its practice of vainly trying to controvert a similar allegation made by the detenu through the lone affidavit of the Deputy Secretary having no personal knowledge as to what transpired when the order of detention and the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu. It is indeed a sad commentary on the functioning of the Detaining Authority that despite the observations made by the Supreme Court in Raziyas case (supra) almost five years back it has not tried to correct itself. The indifference shown by the Detaining Authority in this behalf must of necessity prove fatal in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

(2.) Look at the facts of the present case. The detenu is an illiterate person. The detenu has in paragraph 4 of his petition in unmistakable language stated that the respondents had not explained the order of detention and the grounds of detention in a language known to him i. e. the Kutchchhi language. This is sought to be controverted through the affidavit of Shri Randhawa Deputy Secretary Home Department who in paragraph 3 states as under:

(3.) In the result the petition succeeds. The order of detention is quashed and the detenu is ordered to be released at once unless required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (KMV) Petition allowed.