R. Jayasimha Babu, J.: The person, who has been detained as a goonda and against whom there are numerous adverse cases as set out in the detention order, which if established in Courts after due trial will result in punishment of great severity and who has also been involved in a ground case of attempt to murder, all of which will cumulatively justify his being labelled as a goonda, has now to be released on the short ground that the translation of the detention order given to him in Tamil, the only language which he knows, omits to set out a whole paragraph of the original order, which is made in English. 2. The omitted portion reads thus: “A copy of the petition sent by one Tmt.Udaya dated 30.11.2001 addressed to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai, was also placed before me. I have gone through the contentions raised in the said petition and the relevant case records. The contentions raised by the petitioner are not correct and, hence, I am not giving much credence to the petition and felt that the same is given with ulterior motive to use the same as defence document.” 3. In the Tamil version of the order of detention with the grounds, which is also signed by the detaining authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 7.12.2001 by which the petitioner Veeramani, aged 45 years, son of Kalappan of Ayothiyakuppam, Chennai, was directed to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, completely omits to set out that portion which is extracted above. To make matters worse, though the detenu had, by his representation dated 30.12.2001 had pointed out this omission and had sought for the Tamil translation of the same, the Government, did not even after receiving such a request comply with the same. The reply given by the Government to that representation does not even make a reference to this part of his request. It may be mentioned here that the representation also refers to numerous other alleged lacuna to which it is now not necessary to refer. 4. The reply given by the Government to that representation does not even make a reference to this part of his request. It may be mentioned here that the representation also refers to numerous other alleged lacuna to which it is now not necessary to refer. 4. One of the ground cases against the detenu is that on 29.10.2001, that is about less than two months prior to the date of the detention order, the detenu and his gangmen had, after tying the hands of one Shanmugam, who had to attend the 6th Sessions Court and who was proceeding through the staircase of the Court, threatened him with a knife and removed him from the Court premises, inflicted serious injuries and terrorised him in order to prevent him from deposing in a pending criminal case. That case is stated to be under investigation. We have mentioned that ground case only to indicate the seriousness with which the matter concerning this detenu should have been dealt with by the detaining authority and others who are concerned with the examination of the representation that the detenu made to the Government thereafter. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was for the detenu to have asked as to what happened to the representation that had been given by his wife, as that was in fact the representation that was referred to in the omitted portion of the order given in Tamil, and that, if he had asked, he would have been informed as to what the outcome was. He also submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by reason of the omission of a part of the order in the translation. The arguments so advanced for the State cannot be accepted. 6. The Constitutional guarantee under Art.22(5) is that a detenu, who is sought to be preventively detained shall be served with the ground on which the order has been made, and shall also be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The ground on which the detention order has been made should therefore be communicated to the detenu. The communication, as has been held by the Courts must necessarily be in a language known to the detenu. The communication to be effected to such detenu should be not merely be a portion of the order made, but of the whole. The ground on which the detention order has been made should therefore be communicated to the detenu. The communication, as has been held by the Courts must necessarily be in a language known to the detenu. The communication to be effected to such detenu should be not merely be a portion of the order made, but of the whole. So far as the detenu is concerned, the detention order, is the one which has been communicated to him in the language that is known to him. The detaining authority cannot therefore set out facts or draw inference in the order made by him in English or other language, but omit to incorporate the same in whole or in part in the order communicated to the detenu in the language known to him. It is the entire order of detention in the language known to him to which the detenu is entitled, and not merely selected portion of the same. 7. ‘Communicating’ the grounds of detention is not the same as supplying the copies of the documents on which the Detaining Authority relies upon, or the documents to which reference is made in the detention order, nor is the furnishing of the ‘grounds’ the same as making available to the detenu, documents that the detenu may ask for the purpose of making an effective representation even where such documents have not been relied upon or referred to in the order of detention. The detenu is entitled as of right to the whole of the contents of the detention order. Minor or trivial mistakes may be overlooked, but the omission to set out what the detaining authority had done in relation to documents to which he had given consideration, had formed the opinion thereon, and had recorded that opinion especially when that opinion is against the detenu must necessarily be communicated as part of the grounds to the detenu. The question of prejudice or lack of it does not arise for consideration where the obligation to communicate the whole of the grounds of detention is breached. 8. The error in the translation extends beyond the omission to incorporate a part of the detention order in English in the Tamil translation. The question of prejudice or lack of it does not arise for consideration where the obligation to communicate the whole of the grounds of detention is breached. 8. The error in the translation extends beyond the omission to incorporate a part of the detention order in English in the Tamil translation. In the ground case, which has been referred to in the detention order, reference is made to one Noor Mohammed and the threat said to have been held out by the detenu and his men against him as he belonged to the group of Thirunal alias Thirunavukkarasu. In the translation furnished to the detenu, the narration is that the threat was held out not to a person who belonged to the group of Thirunal alias Thirunavukkarasu but to Thirunal himself, to whom a threat is said to have been made that he would be done to death. The identity of the person against whom the alleged threat is made was a matter of significance and should have been accurately stated in the Tamil translation. 9. There are also other mistakes in the translation to which it is now not necessary to refer. 10. The State’s power to make orders of preventive detention is a power which is required to be exercised with utmost care and caution, and with scrupulous regard to the need to comply with every one of the constitutional guarantees as also the statutory requirements. The Courts have time and again emphasised that preventive detention is a hard law and strict compliance with the requirements of law will be insisted upon by the Courts. The duty of the State in this regard is a heavy one, but it is a duty, which must be discharged to the satisfaction of the Courts if it expects to make effective use of it’s powers of preventive detention. 11. The rationale for preventive detention is the need to protect society from persons whose conduct is inimical to the country’s safety or society’s welfare and the urgency of the need to take prompt action against them without having to wait for the normal procedures of the person being brought to trial and, thereafter, in case of conviction being incarcerated. 11. The rationale for preventive detention is the need to protect society from persons whose conduct is inimical to the country’s safety or society’s welfare and the urgency of the need to take prompt action against them without having to wait for the normal procedures of the person being brought to trial and, thereafter, in case of conviction being incarcerated. The duty to protect the country and the society casts an obligation on the State to ensure that whenever it exercises power of preventive detention, it exercises the same with due care and that the exercise conforms to other requirements of law. Omission to do so would be an instance of the State failing in its duty to protect the country and the society. 12. Even in cases where the authorities concerned have acted with utmost good faith and with the greatest possible efficiency in clamping an order of detention against a person who fully deserves it, such an order could nevertheless, be set at naught by the acts of omission and commission on the part of the State’s functionaries as has happened in this case. Repeated instances of such acts of omission and commission which have come to our notice in numerous cases, make us wonder as to whether such omissions are bona fide, or have been made to help the very persons against whom the order of detention is clamped. 13. The State would be failing in it’s duty if it fails to take steps to ascertain the cause for such lapses and take action against those who commit these lapses at whatever level. The State cannot be a silent spectator and merely close the eyes by not taking steps to ascertain the cause for the lapses pointed out by the Court and taking appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such lapses. 14. The lapse that we have pointed out in this order is a very elementary one and should not have happened at all. The detenu in this case is one who is conversant with Tamil and not with English. This is not a solitary case where the detenu knows only Tamil and not English. The majority of the detenus seem to be persons who do not know English and who are only conversant with Tamil. The detenu in this case is one who is conversant with Tamil and not with English. This is not a solitary case where the detenu knows only Tamil and not English. The majority of the detenus seem to be persons who do not know English and who are only conversant with Tamil. The State, therefore, should be fully alive to the need to communicate to the detenu the detention order and the grounds accurately in Tamil, and to ensure that the order so communicated fully complies with the requirements of law. The errors of translation or omission to translate, which we have found in this case are mistakes, which the State should not have permitted to occur. 15. Effective remedial measures must be taken by the State to prevent recurrence of such errors. The State should also cause enquiry to be made as to how such lapses have occurred, and if it finds after enquiry, that there has in fact been a lack of due diligence on the part of those who are concerned, or deliberate omission actuated by mala fide intentions, the State should initiate appropriate action. Failure to do so would be a failure to protect the public from the very persons whose activity is considered by the State to be inimical to public welfare, and whose detention is considered by the State itself to be necessary. 16. We, therefore, direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State, the Home Secretary, as also to the Director General of Police and to the Police Commissioners of the Metropolitan cities who are empowered to make detention orders, so that they will take necessary steps to prevent a situation like the one that we had to deal in this case and also take appropriate action immediately after the reasons for which the orders of detention are set aside by the Courts, are made known to them. 17. The continued detention of the detenu not being lawful, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case that may be pending against him. 18. 17. The continued detention of the detenu not being lawful, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case that may be pending against him. 18. Before concluding, we must observe that we have confined our discussion in this order to the point which was put forth at the threshold, and we have not considered the other points which have been urged before us, as we find that it is not necessary to deal with other points having regard to the conclusion reached by us on the point that has already been considered by us in this order.