Raiment v. State of Tamil Nadu — 1988 DIGILAW 109 (MAD)

JUDGMENT S.A..Kader, J. : This writ petition has been filed by the brothers-in-law of the detenu under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by quashing the order of detention dated 22.10.1987 passed against the detenu by the second respondent Collector and District Magistrate of Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act (XIV of 1982), with a view to prevent the detenu, Dhas alias Dhasan alias Yesu-dasah, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 2. The main ground urged by Mr.S.Shanmughavelayutham, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu who comes from Kanniyakumari District, is a person, whose mother-tongue is Malayalam; that he does not know to read and write either in Tamil or English, that the papers and the documents and the grounds of detention were furnished to him in Tamil and English and that the failure of furnishing copies of documents in Malayalam vitiates the order of detention passed against the detenu. In reply thereto, the second respondent Collector and District Magistrate of Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil has submitted thus in paragraph 6 of his counter affidavit: ‘Regarding the averments made in paragraph 5(2) of the affidavit, this respondent submits that the detenus ia native of Kollengode in Kanniyakumari District and since his birth he was living there and as such he is well-conversant with the Tamil language and very well speak and understand Tamil. The copies of documents including the detention order and the grounds of detention were translated in English and served on him and the contents of which have been read over and explained to him and the detenu has acknowledged the same.’ 3. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Courts in this country that the grounds of detention and the copies of documents referred to therein should be in the language which the detenu understands. As observed by the Supreme Court in Lallubhai Josibhat v. Union of India Lallubhai Josibhat v. Union of India 1981 MLJ. (Crl.) 350: 1981 Crl.L.J. 283: (1981)2 S.C.C. 437: 1981 S.C.C. (Crl.) 463: (1981)2 S.C.J. 37: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 728: Art.22(g) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of detention must be ‘communicated’ to the detenu, (Communicate is a strong word. (Crl.) 350: 1981 Crl.L.J. 283: (1981)2 S.C.C. 437: 1981 S.C.C. (Crl.) 463: (1981)2 S.C.J. 37: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 728: Art.22(g) of the Constitution requires that the grounds of detention must be ‘communicated’ to the detenu, (Communicate is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds should be imported effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language, which he understands. The whole purpose of ‘communicating the grounds’ to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the detenu knows to reads and write only in Malayalam. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a certificate from the Government High School, Kollangode, where the detenu has been studying upto IX Standard. This certificate shows that the mother-tongue of the detenu is Malayalam. There is nothing on the side of the respondents to rebut the evidence furnished by this certificate that the detenu's mother-tongue is Malayalam. Though it is averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent that the detenus is conversant with Tamil and will speak and understand Tamil, it is interesting to note that in the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the grounds of detention were translated in English to the detenu. If, as a matter of fact, the detenu was conversant with Tamil language, there was absolutely no necessity to have the documents translated to the detenu in English. What is more surprising is that the endorsement in the copies of grounds of detention and other documents furnished to the detenu and produced before us by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that these documents were translated to the detenu in Tamil and this endorsement is a rubber stamp endorsement. The very same rubber stamp endorsement, we find, in the Tamil copies of grounds and order of detention. This only shows that these affixtures have been made mechanically. What is more important is that the detenu claims to be a Malayalee, knowing only Malayalam language and the failure to furnish copies in Malayalam of all the documents, grounds of detention and order of detention is fatal to the order served upon him. This only shows that these affixtures have been made mechanically. What is more important is that the detenu claims to be a Malayalee, knowing only Malayalam language and the failure to furnish copies in Malayalam of all the documents, grounds of detention and order of detention is fatal to the order served upon him. The failure to furnish copies of these documents in Malayalam violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 32(2) of the Constitution of India and the order of detenu has therefore to be struck down. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed, the order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in some other case. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.