Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 739 (GAU)

Koireng (N) Salam (O) Sosim v. State of Manipur

2010-09-17

ASHOK POTSANGBAM, H.N.SARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.S. Raisang, learned Counsel on behalf of the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner being aggrieved by her detention under NSA vide order No. Cril/NSA/No 9 of 2010 dated 27.1.2010, passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, Manipur, Order No. 17(1)26/2010-H, dated 5.2.2010, passed by the Government of Manipur, approving the detention order and the order No. 17(1)26/2010, dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Government of Manipur, confirming the aforesaid detention order, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutionality and legality of the aforesaid orders. 3. The allegation, in a nut shell, against the Petitioner is that she is a hardcore member of PREPAK V/C fraction, a banned organization and she has given shelter, in her house, to the following members of PREPAK, namely (1) Shri L Munal Singh, (2) Shri N Sagar Singh, (3) Y Ibo Chou Meitei and (4) Shri M Monao Singh and on several occasions camera meeting was held in her house. It is also alleged that the Petitioner is involved in subversive activities, such as, transportation of fire arms and hand grenades from one place to another. One of the hand grenades collected by the Petitioner from one Ms. RK Sushitra Devi was handed over to the aforesaid members of the PREPAK and the said hand grenade was thrown at the house of Shri K Radhabinod Singh, MLA of Thongmeiband constituency. Considering such acts of giving shelter, keeping fire arms and ammunitions as well as rendering help to the banned organization, the Petitioner caused terror and peril to the lives of general public which is prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Imphal West, in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act. 1980, passed the impugned detention order dated 27.1.2010, with a view to preventing the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. 4. The only ground, rather the sole ground, taken by the Petitioner in the writ petition is that, she has not been supplied with the grounds of detention in a language which is understandable to her. 4. The only ground, rather the sole ground, taken by the Petitioner in the writ petition is that, she has not been supplied with the grounds of detention in a language which is understandable to her. As she is not able to understand the English language, she demanded a translated copy of the detention order and the grounds of detention in Manipuri language written in Bengali script, which is understandable to her so as to enable her to make an effective representation against the order of detention and grounds of detention in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is contended by the learned Counsel of the Petitioner that not having supplied a translated copy of the order of detention and the grounds of detention despite demand for the same, the detention order and the grounds of detention are vitiated and as such, her detention order, approval order and the confirmation order are, therefore, liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. At this stage, it may be pertinent to mention that the Petitioner is illiterate and she cannot even read and write Manipuri language. Nowhere it is stated in the writ petition that the Petitioner can read and write Manipuri language written in Bengali script. She all along maintained that she is an illiterate person. Paragraph 4 of the representation dated 5.2.2010 submitted by the Petitioner would clearly reveal that the purpose of demanding translated copies of the order of detention and the grounds of detention as well as the documents appended thereto, in Manipuri language, is to enable the Petitioner to request somebody to read out the same to her so that she could make an effective representation for revocation of her detention order. From the above, it can well be concluded that the Petitioner is an illiterate person who cannot read and write Manipuri language written in Bengali script. 6. In the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited the following four decisions of the Apex Court: (1) Harokisan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR 1962 SC 911 , (2) Mrs. Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1192 , (3) Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1751 , (4) Powanmmal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 618 . 7. Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1192 , (3) Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1751 , (4) Powanmmal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 SC 618 . 7. Before proceeding any further, we deem it appropriate to mention here that all the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner have no application in the instant case as the detenu in the aforesaid cited cases could read and understand one language or other whereas the detenu in the instant case is illiterate and cannot read & write Manipuri language in any script. In Harikisan's case (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, more particularly, in paragraphs- 4 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court held that the detenu who was not conversant with the English language, ought to have been communicated the order of detention and the grounds of detention in a language which he or she could read and understand, if such detenue is a literate person. The detenue in the aforesaid case was literate and could understand Hindi and but was not served with the order of detention and the grounds of detention in that language despite demand made by the detenu for the same. Under these circumstances, it was held that there was no communication of the order of detention and the grounds of detention to the detenu. We are of the opinion that the above cited case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand as the detenu in the instant case, is an illiterate person who even cannot read or write Manipuri language. 8. In the case of Mrs. Tsering Dolkar (supra), the detenu who was a Ladakhi, could read and write Ladakhi language but he was served with the order of detention and the grounds of detention in Tibetan language. Although it was contended by the State Respondents that there was no Constitutional infirmity in not supplying to the detenu the order of detention and the grounds of detention in Ladakhi language. But the said contention was negated by the Apex Court by holding that the order of detention and the grounds of detention ought to have been communicated in a language which was understandable to the detenu. But the said contention was negated by the Apex Court by holding that the order of detention and the grounds of detention ought to have been communicated in a language which was understandable to the detenu. In the aforesaid case, the order of detention and the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu in Tibetan language which language the Petitioner did not understand. The order of detention and the grounds of detention ought to have been supplied to the detenue in Ladakhi language. The decision in this case is not applicable to the case in hand as the detenu therein could read and write Ladakhi language, even though with little knowledge, unlike the present Petitioner who can neither read nor write Manipuri language. 9. In Hadibandu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack AIR 1969 SC 43 : (1969) 1 SCR 227 the Petitioner therein was served with the order of detention and the grounds of detention in Hindi language. The detenu demanded for translated copy of the same in Oriya language, which he could understand. The documents were supplied in Oriya language and that too beyond the statutory period. In that view of the matter, the preventive detention of the Petitioner was held to be not maintainable and the Apex Court noted that the detenu in the aforesaid case was conversant with the Oriya language and therefore, he ought to have been supplied with the order of detention and the grounds of detention in Oriya language. 10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also cited the case of Smt. Raziya Umar Bakshi (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held that the detention order and the grounds of detention being in English language which were not understandable to the detenu, the detaining authority ought to have given a vernacular translation of the same to the detenu or explain the same in a language known to her. This case also does not help the case of the Petitioner, inasmuch as, the grounds of detention were explained to the Petitioner in Manipuri language after translation of the same in Manipuri language by a jail staff. 11. This case also does not help the case of the Petitioner, inasmuch as, the grounds of detention were explained to the Petitioner in Manipuri language after translation of the same in Manipuri language by a jail staff. 11. In the affidavit of the Respondent No. 3, the detaining authority, it is clearly stated in paragraph- 6 of the affidavit that the grounds of detention dated 30.1.2010 have been read out to the Petitioner after translating the same in the language known to her by the jail officials. The aforesaid averment made in the affidavit dated 12.7.2010 is neither disputed nor controverted by the Petitioner by filing a reply affidavit. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that if the detenu is literate or even semi literate then the grounds of detention should be supplied to the detenu in the language which he/she can read or understand. However, if the detenu is illiterate and cannot read or write, then the grounds of detention should be explained to him or her in the language which he or she could understand and as such the detenu can make an effective representation against the order of preventive detention. From the above discussion and on perusal of the documents available on records, there is no dispute that the Petitioner is an illiterate person who cannot read or write even Manipuri language written in Bengali script and demand for translated copy of the ground of detention is only for the purpose of requesting somebody to read out the same to her. Further, the fact that the grounds of detention were read out to her by the jail staff at Manipur Jail where she is lodged, is neither denied nor disputed. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no doubt that the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu in the language, which she could understand, and, as such, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed