In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court recently quashed the preventive detention of Shahabaz Ahmed Mohammad Yusuf, emphasizing the critical importance of providing detainees with documents in a language they fully understand. The court found that the failure to supply translations of key documents into Urdu, the sole language Shahabaz comprehended, violated his constitutional right to effectively challenge his detention.
Shahabaz was detained under a preventive detention order, with the grounds for his detention and the detention order itself translated into Urdu and served to him. However, the statements from two 'in-camera' witnesses, pivotal to the detention's justification, were provided only in Marathi. Given that Shahabaz was only conversant in Urdu, he was unable to understand these statements, thereby hindering his ability to mount an effective representation against his detention.
The division bench, comprising Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak, underscored that the detaining authority's acknowledgment of Shahabaz's linguistic limitations necessitated the translation of all pertinent documents into Urdu. By failing to provide Urdu translations of the Marathi in-camera statements, the authorities deprived Shahabaz of his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees detainees the earliest opportunity to make an effective representation against their detention.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the timeline of events leading to the detention order. The in-camera statements were recorded in March 2024, and the proposal for Shahabaz's detention was forwarded to the detaining authority in April 2024. However, the detention order was not issued until July 30, 2024. The court noted a conspicuous silence in the authorities' affidavit regarding the activities undertaken between April 25 and July 29, 2024. This unexplained delay raised questions about the urgency and necessity of the detention, especially if Shahabaz's activities were deemed imminently dangerous to public order.
This ruling aligns with precedents emphasizing the necessity of providing detainees with documents in a language they understand. For instance, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Sharafat Sheikh v. Union of India, set aside a detention order where the detenue, being illiterate, was not properly communicated the grounds of detention, which were in English. The court held that merely signing documents in English does not imply that the detenue has a working knowledge of the language, and the detention order must be explained in a language the detenue understands to enable effective representation.
Similarly, the Bombay High Court previously quashed a detention order due to discrepancies between the English and Marathi versions of the grounds of detention. The court observed that inconsistencies in the grounds recorded in different language versions deprived the detenue of making an effective representation, thereby violating their rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
In Shahabaz's case, the court's decision reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards, including the provision of documents in a language the detenue understands, are not mere formalities but essential components of the right to personal liberty. The failure to adhere to these safeguards not only undermines the detenue's ability to challenge their detention but also erodes the foundational principles of justice and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.
This judgment serves as a critical reminder to detaining authorities of their obligation to uphold constitutional mandates by ensuring that all detainees are afforded the full spectrum of their rights, including the right to comprehend and contest the grounds of their detention effectively.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.