CHAJU RAM versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 03-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH, A.N. RAY, I.D. DUA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

872 
CBAJURAM 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU I: KASllMlll 
March 3, 1970 
[M. HIDAVATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAV AND I. D. DUA, JI.) 
lammu & Kashrrnr Prtventiv• D•t•ntion Act, 19~Dettntion raukr 
s. 3(2) road with s. 5-Detenu's right to make repr-ntation ii t/ejuted 
i/ grounds not explllined IP him in language understood by him or if 
grounds are vague-Detention becomes illegal. 
The petitioner was detained under the order of the District Maaiatrate. 
Jammu passed under s. 3(2) read withs. S of the Jammu & Kaabmir Pre-
ventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30, 
1969. He filed a petition 
under Art, 32 challenging his detention. Later he withdrew the· ori&inal 
petition and with the leave of the court filed another. In Ibis petition it 
was urged that the grounds of detention supplied to him were m F.qlilh 
which he as an illiterate person did not undentand; they wexe also not 
eJ<plained to him in the language undentood by him. It was further uraed 
that the grounds were vague. On behalf of the State the file relating to 
the detention of the petitioner was produced in court and att.ention was 
drawn to the copy of the grotmds setved on the petitioner at the bottom 
of which there was a thumb-mark alleged to be that of the petitioner and 
an endonement to the effect that the grounds were eJ<plained to the 
detenu in Urdu. The Additional SCctetary to t!ie Government filed an 
affidavit in reply to the first petition andthe Under Secretary in rq>Jy to 
the second petition. 
HELD: (i) It is absolutely necessary that when dealing with a detenu 
who cannot read or understand English language or any language at all, 
that the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as poui· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
IC 
ble in the language he understands so that he can avail himself of the 
statutory right of making a representation. To hand over to him a docu· 
ment written in English and to obtain his thumb-impression on it in token 
of his having received the same does not comply with the requirements of r 
the Jaw which gives a very valuable right to the detenu to make a represen· 
tation. [877 BJ 
(ii) The endonement on the copy <If the grounds in the original file 
were in different inks and therefore the document could not be taken at its 
face value. 
In the copy of the grounds filed with the affidavit on behalf 
of the State in reply to the first petition there was no endorsement to the 
effect that the contents had been eJ<plained to the detenu in Urdu. The 
G 
affidavit filed by the Under-Secretary in reply to the second petition could 
not be relied on because it bore erasures and substitution of. words at a 
significant place. [875 H-876 Cl 
When there was contradiction between the affidavits filed by the peti· 
tioner and by the State the Court had to determine which one was accept-
able giving all the benefit of doubt to the detenu. In the present case the 
aflid~vit of the detenu had to be preferred and it must be held that the re-
quirement df explaining the grounds to the detenu in his own language 
was not complied with [875 D; 876 HJ 
(iii) The grounds charged the petitioner wi.th ~av!ng conspired with 
some leaders of Democratic conference, and havmg 10c1ted landless people 
H 
, 
CHAJli RAM V· J, & K. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 
873 
A 
of Rspura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mecha-
of RSpura Tebsil to forcibly occupy the )and comprised in Nandpur Mecha-
to evict them. No details of the leaders of the conference or of the per-
sons incited or the dates ori which he conspired or incited the squatters or 
the time when such conference took place were mentioned. It would be 
impossible for anybody to make a representation against such .grounds 
which, on the authorities of this Court. must be held to be vague. [877 D-E] 
B 
Accordingly the detention of t~e petitioner must be declared illegal. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No .. 32 of 1970. 
. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus . 
. H. K. Puri, for the petitioner. 
R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatlluah C.J. · The petitioner Chaju Ram was detained 
under the orders of the District Magistrate, Janunu passed under 
s. 3(2) read withs. 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Deten· 
tion Act, 1964 on March 30, 1969. The order was served on 
him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorse-
ment by the Station House
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.