Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the preventive detention order after finding that the detenue deliberately refused the translated grounds and documents despite reading them and knowing his right to represent against detention. Refusal to accept documents does not generally remove the authority’s separate duty to inform the detenue of that right; on this record both constitutional requirements were fulfilled.
Issues
- What duties Article 22(5) imposes regarding communication of detention grounds and the right to make a representation.
- Whether the detenue’s refusal to accept the documents and his claim of inadequate communication invalidated the detention order.
Provisions considered
- Article 22(5), Constitution of IndiaThe authority must effectively communicate grounds and relevant documents in an understood language and afford the earliest opportunity to represent, including informing the detenue of that right. The Court found compliance because translated materials were promptly offered and read, and the signed panchnama and circumstances established the detenue’s knowledge notwithstanding refusal to receive them. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- Communication of grounds and the earliest opportunity to make a representation are distinct but mutually reinforcing safeguards. Effective knowledge of the grounds and relevant supporting materials in a language understood by the detenue is essential. Mere oral explanation does not suffice when the written grounds are in a language he does not understand. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 14, 15)
- The serving authority must inform the detenue, orally or in writing, of the right to make a representation. Conscious refusal to receive grounds does not dispense with that duty. Where he receives understandable grounds clearly stating the right, repeated oral information is unnecessary; otherwise the right must be communicated. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- On the facts, the detenue read the grounds and relevant documents but refused receipt, recorded that refusal in English and signed the panchnama witnessed independently. The documents had been translated into Bengali and offered the day after detention. The Court found that he knew the basis of detention and his right to represent, and rejected the challenge based on suppressed facts and deliberate avoidance of receipt. (¶¶ 4, 5, 16, 18)
- Having been made aware of the grounds underlying the detaining authority’s satisfaction, the detenue could not on this record demand every background detail, including access to the telephonic conversation, particularly when he had not exercised the right to represent. The Court was reviewing preventive detention, not adjudicating the regular criminal prosecution. (¶¶ 11, 17)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to set aside the detention order was upheld. Pending applications disposed of.