SAWAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition was argued earlier for a considerable time and we were stuck up because of non-availability of record and the request on behalf of the Union of India for taking fresh material on record. On 23-5-1996 we adjourned the case and directed the standing counsel for Union of India to file whatever documents he wanted to refer with proper affidavits in the case on or before 1st July, 96 and the case was fixed for 3rd July, 96 for hearing. When the case was being heard today and the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the point which has already seen taken in the original petition that the detenu was an illiterate person and the grounds were not explained to him, the learned counsel for the Union of India again sought time to file additional affidavit. Actually in the return originally filed before us this allegation was controverted vaguely. It was not controverted that the petitioner was an illiterate person, but the plea taken was that the grounds had been explained to him. It was stated that the detention gorier along with the relevant documents was supplied to the petitioner in Hindi and the same was read over to the petitioner by the official of the Jail authority who served the detention order of the petitioner. Neither the name of the officer of the jail who is supposed to have explained the grounds was mentioned in the return nor any affidavit of such a person was filed till today. Already ten months time has passed and only couple of months time remained for the expiry of the period of detention order. In such circumstances we do not think it proper to adjourn the case any further to enable the counsel for the Union of India to file additional affidavits or documents.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Chaju Ram Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1971 SC 263 wherein it was held that it was absolutely necessary that when the Court is dealing with a detenu who cannot read or understand english language or any other language at all, the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as possibie in the language he understands so that he can avail himself of the statutory right of making a representation. It was also pointed out that the same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1751 wherein it was held that where the grounds are couched in a language which is not known to the detenu, unless the contents of the grounds are fully explained and translated to the detenu, it will tantamount to not serving the grounds of detention to the detenu and would vitiate the detention. It was also pointed out that the Supreme Court in Mrs. Tsering Dolkar Vs. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1987 SC 1192 observed that the detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. The fact that the detenu's wife knew the language in which the grounds were framed does not satisfy the legal requirement. In the matter of preventive detention the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and when there is a failure to comply with those requirements it becomes difficult to sustain the order. In that case before the Supreme Court representation had been in fact made by the detenu, but even then the strict compliance with the procedure prescribed by law was insisted upon.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court we are of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground without going into the other grounds raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly pleaded in the petition that he was an illiterate person and the grounds of detention were not explained to him by any one. As already observed this ground has not been properly controverted and the fact of the petitioner being illiterate has been admitted by non-traverse. It cannot, therefore, be said that the requirement of the law that the grounds of detention should be explained to the detenu has been complied with.