Grounds of detention should be communicated in writing to detenu in language he understands: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that it is a detained person’s fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution that the grounds of detention order are communicated in a language understood by him/ her [Jasvinder Kaur v Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Ors]..A Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that oral explanation or oral translation of the order does not amount to communication of grounds, and the same should be done in writing in a language that the detenu understands.“For completeness, where a detenu is illiterate, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the mandate of Article 22(5) would be served if the grounds of detention are explained to the detenu in a language that he understands, so as to enable him to avail the fundamental right of making a representation,” the Bench's order stated. The detention order in question was, therefore, quashed and the detenu's release directed..The Court was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman named Jasvinder Kaur seeking production of her son, Harmeet Singh, who was detained by the authorities through a detention order dated June 5, 2020, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA Act).Based on the order, Singh was detained on June 24, 2020.It was alleged that Singh arrived at Delhi’s IGI Airport from Dubai carrying contraband items and goods, along with three other persons. A notice under the Customs Act was served upon him, and his statement was recorded under the act.Singh’s statement was typed in English and the authorities told the Court that it was explained to him in the vernacular by an interpreter.Though a written request was made by Singh to be provided with a copy of the detention order along with grounds of detention either in Hindi or Punjabi because he was unable to understand English, the request was rejected.The detention order was then confirmed by the Ministry on August 11, 2021..The Court in the instant case held that the purpose of Article 22(5) is not served if the grounds of detention are only verbally explained and nothing in writing is left with the detenu in a language he understands.It said that communicating the grounds of detention “effectively and fully” implies that the grounds must be furnished in a language which the detenu understands and if that entails translation to such a language then that is part of the Constitutional mandate.“Interpreting the scope and operation of this fundamental right, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that ‘communication’, within the meaning of Article 22(5), means imparting to the detenu sufficient knowledge of the grounds on which a detention order has been made; so that the detenu is in a position to effectively make a representation against the order. More specifically, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that oral explanation or oral translation of the grounds of detention would not amount to communicating the grounds to a detenu,” the Bench stated..It was held that merely because a detenu is able to sign or write few words in a language, does not mean that he/she is ‘conversant with the language’ since they may not yet be able to effectively understand the grounds of detention, and the documents relied upon to make a proper representation against the detention order..Applying these principles to the present case, the High Court said that merely because Singh had signed the documents in English does not mean that he had sufficient working knowledge of the language.It was noted that he was a class 10 dropout, that too from a Hindi-medium school, and the defensive wording of the notation left no doubt that it was made at the behest of custom officials.The Bench cited Singh's communication from June 2021 where he had requested for a translated copy of his detention grounds, and stated that they were unable to understand why the authorities did not furnish the same to him..The authorities’ argument that Singh's frequent foreign travel was evidence of his knowledge in English, was rejected by the Court. In view of the above, the Court held that the detention order falls foul of the Constitutional mandate under Article 22(5)..While advocates Arjun Dewan and Shahryar Khan appeared for the petitioner, the respondents were represented by advocate Dhruv Pande and Senior Government Standing Counsel (SGSC) Satish Kumar..[Read Judgment]