LexSURJEET SINGH & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
205
SURJEET SINGH & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
March 12, 1981
[A.D. KOSHAL AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.]
Whet her service 011 the detenu, whose mother tongue is Hindi of the grounds
of detention in English, a language not understood by him, vitiates the deten-
tion-Grounds of detention explained to the detenu in Hindi by the Serving Offi-
cer-Not enough-Grounds must be supplied in Hindi.
Allowing the petitions, the Court
HELD : The supply to the detenus of the grounds of detention in the
English language with which they were not conversant could not be considered
to be effective communication to them so as to afford to them a real opportu-
nity of making a representation against the order of detention. Their deten-
tion is repugnant to the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. The
complicated nature or the length of the document, is not a sine qua non for
the fulfilment of the requirement that the grounds must be supplied to the
detenu in a language. which he understood before the service on him of sueh
grounds could be considered a communication thereof to him. [20SC-D, 208E-G]
Harikisan v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1962] Suppl. 2 SCR 918;
Habibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack and Anr, [1969] l SCR 227;
A
B
c
D
Nainmal Pratap Mal Shah v. Union of India and Ors. [1980] 4 S.C.C. 427,
E
followed.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 5931 and 5932 of
1980.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)
N. M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Petitioners.
M. K. Banerjee Addi. Sol. Genl., R. N. Poddar and Miss A.
Subhashini for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KosHAL, J.
By this order we shall dispose of Criminal Writ
Petitions Nos. 5931 and 5932 of 1980 in each of which the conten-
tion raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the same.
F
G
2.
In Criminal Writ Petition No. 5931 of 1980, the petitioner
H
is one Surjeet Singh while the other petition has been filed by a
person named Kulwant Singh.
A
B
c
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 3 s.c.R
3.
Each of the petitioners was detained on the 13th October,
1980 under the provisions of the National Security Ordinance which
now stands replaced by the National Security Act. They were
arrested on that date and pn each of them a police officer served an
order of detention along with the grounds on which it was based,
both the documents being in English.
It is the case of the State
and the same has not been controverted before us, that the police
officer effecting the service of the two documents explained to the
concerned detenu in Hindi what their contents were.
4.
Dr. N. M. Ghatate, learned counsel for the petitioners
has challenged the detention of the two petitioners with th~ conten•
tion that English was not a language which either of them under-
stood, that this factor rendered it necessary for the grounds of
detention to be served on them in Hindi which was their mother-
tongue and that the same having not been done, there was in law no
communication of such grounds to either of them.
D
5.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have no
E
F
G
hesitation in holding that the challenge to the detention is well-
founded in view of the dicta of this Court in Harikisan v. The State
of Maharashtra & Others,(1) Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate,
Cuttack & Anr.,(') and Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India
and Otlzers,(3)
In the first of these cases an order under the Preventive
Detention Act (Central Act IV of 1950) was under challenge. The
grounds of detention had been provided to the detenu in English
and a request by him for a translation of the same was turned down.
The High Court was of the opinion that so long as English conti-
nued to be the official language of the State, the communication of
the grounds of detention in that language was enough compliance
with the requirements of the Constitution. This opinion did not
find favour with Sinha, C.J., who delivered the judgment of this
Court and observed :
'·If the detained person is conversant with the English
language, he will naturally be in a position to understand the
gravamen of the charge against him and the facts and circum-
stances on which the order of detention is based.
But to a
H
(1) [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 918.
(2) [1969] l S.C.R. 227.
(3) [ 1980] 4 s.c.c. 427.
SURJEET SINGH v. UNION (Koshal, J.)
207
person who is not so conversant with the EnExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.