HARIKISAN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 31-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

W62 
-.. -
.Jp~tH1'.J 3J. 
918 SUPREME qbURT· REP$.'.F~ f~9621 SUPJ . 
. jl.~~p~I.S:A.N 
-~· : 
.. , .. ,. ~· v .;· 
~1· 
. 
-
~ •. 
.THE'STATE Q.F M~HA°R:AsiI'l'RA & 0T~E.RS
(~.P. SINHA;-O<J., .. K. SUlljlA ~A~; ~: Rl\JAG0P~4 
... AY}'Af'l(M·R;J,-R,~~u.r;>:SQ.lKA~ and 'ii'. ·I,,. 
· 
V.El'\.KATARA}b\ A'.IY AR,]].) .1 
.. _ 
.. ' 
·_~ 
·~~-:~ ·~: ... .,,' 
~- . '!: '"~-1 
~~· ·-·~ 
~-'-'".. 
'• 
Pfeveiltive. ·Difeniion~Ord,~r ·aluf'grounds >;n )!J.nglisli-
D~tenue not.knowing. Englisli:..:..pppbitunity ti ',tnake .. rep';-e8enta.-
. tion; wh~ther .denie<J-Oon~ti(!'tio1i. of IiJf!ia', Ar~. )2(~)-~ · 
The-<jeteime:,Yas servM . }Vith 
th~· o~d~r of· detention 
and the grounds .in English. He did 1lOt know English ·and 
asked for a translation of these .in Hindi. 
This., r~quesf was 
refused on the ·grounds that the order and the grounds h"ad 
been ora1ly translat~d t? him at th:.e 
time they \vere' seryed 
upon him and that English still being the official !ang-uage 
communication o'f. the order and groun<:Js in_ English was in 
accordance with the law.and the Constitt1tion. 
Held, th~t the provisio:ns of Art. 22(5) of the Constitu-
tion were not. cpmplied wjth a9cj the c\~te11ti,o.n··was il)egal. 
Article 22(5) rcqujred,Wat the· gwµf\d~ .sl)ould, bC: ·.coi;rimuni-
c~ted to the detenmf iis. soon as ma)'.J:ie'ahd· that: hi! shou11fbe 
afforded the earlies< oppoi't!lnffy of ·.·waJdng. ;a,\ r.~presentation 
agairi.st the ·order. 
Gomrriu'hic:atio'n. . .Ut: thiS cOhtcxt ·meant 
bringin'{hom~ tq ihe'·i:IO'tenµ6·"e@tt1vii'kllowleage ci~·, · xhe: fl\cts 
l\Hd 'groµnds on'whicln!le·ohlcr:wai•baseti. 'foa.perso;1 who:. 
, was-ln<;it. conversan\'~with 'tl\c,.;:Englljli.;.fan_gijagl', !n.:,or<J~r .to· 
'·,satisfy. the requirj:')ncnt:.of•the ;Gon~tituuon, the detenue. niust. 
-l:ic gi'ven. th!' ·gr()unds in:a:';J,anguage.wh!cli ho·. ca~n,. ur(dp{)i\and 
and irl a script whfoh,'he 
caaj~.adiif..J:)e iS'"1·<Jiieya,t2· .petfo11. 
J\1ere ?ral transfa':ti~.n'at'ih~'time'iir sei":'tce was:llo~'Ontiugh: . 
~ 
.} 
- • 
,.., 
• 
" ·'' • . : II. 
11 -· 
.. 
• 
-
C.R1Mil!IAL APPE!XATE, JtmtsnrnTro}< ; .Dr. :A. 
' 
• 
~ 
~ 
:. : 
¥ 
' 
' 
~ 
,,, -
' 
~' 
" 
.No. 189.of ·Hl61'.' .. 
... 
' , 
·:.,. 
., ,. 
·, .. 
' 
•, 
. ' 
•, . ' .. 
·~· ~ 
" 
. '· .. 
Ap~eal by-· spe~a:l:l!l,ai~.J~oiri,.the,' -ju_dgment 
._aiid 
or~r .datetl jf.uJ31.-JO:'·itnd·ll,19~),:Qf the 
·B.omb~y .High (fourt: rN<Lgpur iJ:leilc)l.);. ·.in· 'Ci-i'mirial 
·Appliqa.tion No. '1~ .. of 01.1)'\lL, 
• 
~ 
A. S. Bo1jM; ,if::'·A: .. "Masoitkar;~.iJf .. L. Vaidya, 
M. M .. Ki,nkheae Aiid. Q~ripat ;Rai,.forJµ,e ·\tppellitnt. 
. 
M. 0, Setalvid-( ·.Atf!?rwy,General: for India, 
B. flen 'and R.l!, Dlielxirj,f.Q,r the Pespo~d!mts. ., . 
19!32. Ja:nuary 3-i .. 'The 'Judgment qf th!l 
09urt was deli:iere<:I' B.t · . 
'.- · 
_, ·. 
· 
l' 
' 
"!
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
919 
. SINlIA, C.J.-This appeal is. direot.ed against 
the Judgment a.nd order dated July 11, 1961 of a 
Division 
Bench of the Bom b!ly High Court 
(Nagpur Bench), dismissing the appellant's appli-
cation, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, read 
with s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
wherein he had pray&d for a writ of Habeas Corpus 
against the State of Maharashtra and. the District 
Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce 
the petitioner in Court and to set him at liberty. 
This application was heard by us on January 8 and 
9, 1962, and after hearing Shri A. S. Bobde for the 
appellant and the learned Attorney-General for 
the State of Maharashtra, we directed that the 
appellant be released forthwith, and that the 
reasons for our judgment will follow later. We 
now proceed to set out our reasons for the order 
passed on that day. 
It. appears that an Order of Detention, under 
s. 3(1) (a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act 
(IV of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 
was made by the District Megistrate (.)f Nagpur on 
April IO, 1961. · The Order of. Detention is in 
these ttrms : 
· 
· 
"No.CC/X-(2) of 196:1 
Office of the . 
District Magistrate, Nagpur, · Dt. 10th April, 
1961. 
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SEC . . 3(1)(a) 
(ii) OF THE PREVENTIVJJJ. DETENTION AOT, 
1950. 
. 
. 
.• . . 
Whereas I am satisfied that it is neces-
sary to · prev:ent Shri .. Harikisan . Kishorilal 
Agarwal of Nagpur from acting in: a manner 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
order and that therefore, it is necessary to 
detain him. 
Now, therefore; in exercise of the powers 
conferred <in me by Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.