Harnam Singh vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir

Jaswant Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

From the affidavit filed on behalf of the State by Shri I. D. Gupta. I. A. S., District Magistrate, Rajouri. it appears that in exercise of the powers

conferred on him u/s 3 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. 1964, he passed an order on March ""19. 1970, directing the

detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent the latter from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. On the submission by him

of the report regarding the aforesaid detention and the grounds thereof as required by Section 3 (3) of the Act the Government vide its order ISD

212 dated April 9. 1970. approved the said detention order. Alone with the aforesaid order of detention, the District Magistrate also passed an

order directing that the petitioner be informed that it was against public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was

made.

Mr. Bhalgotra appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that since the order directing the detention of the petitioner and the order

declaring that it was against the public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made were served on his client in

English language which he did not understand the detention was rendered invalid. He has in support of his contention referred me to a judgment of

the Supreme Court in Harikisan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, . In this case the order of detention and the grounds thereof had been

served on the detenu in English language which he did not understand and his request for translation of the grounds in a language which he

understood was refused.

In the present case, it is no doubt true, that both the aforesaid orders of detention and non-disclosure of grounds are couched in English

language, but the petitioner has not stated anywhere in his petition that he is not conversant with English script or language. Nor has he at any time

after the service of the aforesaid orders made any request to any authority that he should be supplied with a translation of these orders. That apart,

it is also clear from the affidavit filed by the detaining authority (which receives ample support from the endorsements made on the aforesaid two

orders) that the said orders were also explained to the detenu in a language which he understood well. The ruling cited by Mr. Bhalgotra is,

therefore, distinguishable and is of no help to his client. On the other hand, the following observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme

Court in Bidya Deb Barma Etc. Vs. District Magistrate, Tripura, Agartala, are apposite and have an important bearing on the present case.

The petitioner in this case has complained that the order of detention and the grounds supplied to him were in English and he knows only Bengali

and Tripuri. He refers to Harikisan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, . In that case the detenu had asked for a Hindi Translation and had

been denied that facility. We find that this objection was taken here but no request was made at any earlier time. The original petition did not

contain any .such objection. It was raised for the first time, in the rejoinder. The petitioner does, hot seem to have suffered at all. He has filed the

petition in English and questioned the implications of the language of the order and the grounds. Of course, he had the, assistance of the other

detenus who know English. If there had. been the slightest feeling that he was handicapped, we would have seriously considered the matter but in

his case it appears that this point was presented not to start with but after everything was over. We cannot, entertain such a belated complaint.

In the instant case also both the petition and the affidavit in support thereof which is signed by the petitioner are in English language. In the

circumstances. I do not think that the petitioner was in any way handicapped.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.