JUDGMENT
B.P. Saraf, J.
1. (1) One Sorokhai-bam Ibohal Singh was detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) under the order of the Secretary (Home) to the Government of Manipur passed on 18-6-1990. His detention has been challenged by his mother-in-law Smt. Takhollambam Ongbi Mombi Devi by filing this habeas corpus petition on the ground, inter, alia, that the detention is vitiated due to the failure of the detaining authority to furnish the grounds of detention and relevant documents to the detenu in the language known to him.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the detenu is a Manipuri and he can only read and write Manipuri language. He is not familiar with English. Two days after his detention, on 20-6-1990, he was furnished with the grounds of detention and the relevant documents running into 33 pages. All those were in English. As the petitioner did not know English, he was unable to understand the contents thereof and, as such, could not make any representation. He was thereby deprived of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
3. The respondents, in their counter do not deny that the grounds of detention and the documents running into 33 pages were furnished to the detenu in English. They also do not dispute that the detenu did not know English. This is also borne out from the history sheet of the detenu which is on record. The only contention of the State in this regard is that at the time of furnishing to the detenu, all those documents were explained to him in Manipuri. That according to the respondents should be treated as sufficient compliance of the requirements of the law in regard to communication of the grounds to the detenu.
4. We have heard Mr. T. Nanda Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. K. Irabot Singh, learned Government Advocate. We have considered the rival submission of the parties.
5. We do not propose to enter into the controversy whether these documents were in fact explained to the detenu in Manipuri as contended by the State or not because for the reasons discussed below, in our opinion, even if they were so explained, it would not be a sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution which requires that the ground of detention must be communicated to the detenu.
6. The law in this regard is clear. There is a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court on this point. The earliest decision to which reference may be made is the decision of the Supreme Court in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC911 : (1962 (1) Cri LJ 797 where it was observed (at page 913) :
“……Communication, in this context, must, therefore, mean imparting to the detenu sufficient knowledge of all the grounds on which the order of detention is based. In this case the grounds are several, and are based on numerous speeches said to have been made by the appellant himself on different occasions and different dates. Naturally, therefore, any oral translation or explanation given by the police officer serving those on the detenu would not amount to communicating the grounds”.
7. This point also came up before a Constitutional Bench in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 SC 43 : (1969 Cri LJ 274). In that case the grounds in support of the order served on the detenu ran into 14 typed pages. These were in English language whereas the detenu did not know English. It was held by the Supreme Court (at page 46) :
“…….Mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him the translation in script and language which he understood would in our judgment, amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order…..”
8. All those decisions were referred to and relied upon in a later decision of the Supreme Court in Lallubhai Jegibai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728 : (1981) Cri LJ 288). In that case the detenu did not know English while the grounds which were served on him were drawn up in English. An affidavit was filed by the Police Inspector who served the grounds on the detenu that he had fully explained the same to the detenu in Gujarati, the language with which he was familiar. The Supreme Court held that that was not a sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution which requires that the ground of detention must be “communicated to the detenu”. It was observed (at page 733) :
” ‘Communicate’ is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the ‘grounds’ should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicting the grounds to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the ‘gounds’ are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served and the constitutional madate in Article 22(5) is infringed…..” (emphasis supplied)
9. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1982 SC 1500, where it was held that non-supply of Urdu translation of some of the documents to the detenu vitiated the detention.
10. A reference may also be made to a latest decision of the Supreme Court in Tsering Doikar v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1987 SC 1192 : (1987 Cri LJ 988). This was a case where the detenu understood only the Ladakhi language. In that case the Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Constitutional Bench in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate (supra). It was reiterated that the requirement of law within the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution is that the detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. In that case the detenu was supplied with the grounds and documents in English along with translation thereof in Tibetan language. The detenu contended that he understood only Ladakhi language and could hardly write, read or converse in any other language. The contention of the State was that the wife of the detenu knew both English and Tibetan languages and, as such, an effective representation, in fact, had been made. The contention was that no prejudice was caused to the detenu and, as such, there was no violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court turned down the contention and observed (at page 1195):
“……..There can be no two opinions that the requirement of law within the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution is that the detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. The fact that the detenu’s wife knew the language in which the grounds were framed does not satisfy the legal requirement……”
It was further held :
“……We must make it clear that the law as laid down by this Court clearly indicates that in the matter of preventive detention, the test is not one of prejudice but one of strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and when there is a failure to comply with those requirements it becomes difficult to sustain the order.”
11. Following the aforesaid decision, this Court in Hina Khan v. Superintendent, Gauhati District Jail, Gauhati, (1989) 2 GLR 253 quashed the detention on the ground of non-supply of vital documents to the detenu in Assamese language. In that case the documents supplied were in English. The detenu did not know English. He was familiar only with Assemese language. The copies of the documents translated in Assamese were not served on him. That was held to be a non-compliance of the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
12. From the aforesaid decision it is clear that there is no controversy whatsoever about the law in regard to communication of the grounds of detention and material documents to the detenu in the language with which he is familiar. It is also well-settled that mere oral explanation without supplying the detenu the translation in script in the language which he understands would not amount to communication of the same as contemplated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
13. The learned Government Advocate Mr. K. Irabot Singh refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhola Bhuiya v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2122 : (1974 Cri LJ 1462) where the explanation of the grounds in Hindi to an illiterate person in the language he understood was held to be sufficient compliance.
14. We have carefully gone through the judgment more particularly in the light of the various decisions of the Supreme Court including the decision of the Constitutional Bench in Hadibandhu Das (supra). The judgment in Bhola Bhuiya (supra), in our opinion, does not lay down any law of general application. It is confined to the facts and circumstances of that case.
15. We may now consider the facts of the present case in the light of the law set out above. The admitted position is that the detenu does not know English. He is familiar only with the Manipuri language. The grounds of detention and documents running into 33 pages were served on him in English language and script. No translated copies thereof were supplied even later to the detenu in Manipuri. The only contention of the respondents is that the contents of all these documents running into 33 pages were orally explained to the detenu. Under such circumstances, following the law laid down by the Supreme Court we have no option than to hold that such oral explanation is not sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It vitiated the detention and the same has, therefore, to be quashed which we hereby do.
16. However, before parting with the case, we would like to observe that we are not happy to note that the officials entrusted with the powers of preventive detention do not care to familiarise themselves with the requirements of the law they are supposed to administer resulting in the orders of detention being set aside on the grounds of non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of law even though they might have been justified on merits. The Supreme Court has given repeated warnings to the detaining authorities to comply with the spirit and tenor of the constitutional safeguards in Article 22(5). It has been clearly held that any departure therefrom would invalidate the order of detention. Despite that, the scenario remains the same, It must not be forgotten that preventive detention is a serious encroachment on the liberty of a citizen. Any preventive detention, as such, must be strictly in compliance with the requirements of law. All safeguards provided in the Constitution or’ the law should be complied with in letter and spirit. Failure to do so is fraught with serious consequence for all including the authorities concerned found responsible for it. It is high time that somebody higher-up in the Government applies his mind to this aspect of the matter and takes remedial measures to improve the existing state of affairs.
17. Having regard to the foregoing discussion it is clear to us that the continued detention in the present case would be illegal. We accordingly quash the order of detention and direct the respondents to release the detenu forthwith.