S ONGBI SHEITYABHAMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for Habeas Corpus, the wife of the detenu Binoykumar Sharma alias Jayadev alias BK has questioned the legality of the detention of her husband under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

(2.) The only question which has been raised in this petition is that the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied on were not communicated in the language understood by the detenu (Manipuri) so that the detenu could make an effective representation to the Government against the order of detention and, therefore, there was noncompliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

(3.) Before dealing with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be pertinent to note that the detention order, the grounds of detention and the documents referred to and relied on were drawn up in English. The records produced before us indicate that, when the grounds of detention were served on the detenu, the order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents annexed thereto were shown to have been read over and explained to the detenu and the detenu signed acknowledging the receipt of the aforesaid documents endorsing in his own language that the detention order, the grounds of detention, etc. have been received and the same were read over and explained to him and he understood the contents. The detenu submitted a representation written in English and also signed in English. The records further show that the detenu appeared in HSLC examination from a local school in 1954 but he failed to pass the examination. When the order of rejection of the representation submitted by the detenu was communicated to the detenu he acknowledged the receipt of the order by writing received a similar copy in English. Admittedly, no translations were furnished to the detenu.