Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse recently quashed a detention order as the grounds of detention differed between the English and Marathi versions of the detention orders passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981.

“On perusal of the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the satisfaction recorded in the English version of the grounds for issuing detention order is not consistent with the grounds recorded in the Marathi version, which shows that the detenu has been deprived of making an effective representation. Thus, the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated, thereby rendering his detention illegal,” the bench observed.

The high court was hearing a plea filed by the father challenging the detention order against his son.

Advocate Satyavrat Joshi appearing for the petitioner argued that the detention order differs between the English and Marathi version. The counsel argued that the order of detention contains a chart displaying multiple offences registered against the detenu. However, the detaining authority did not rely on this chart for issuing the detention order.

Additional Public Prosecutor, SD Shinde, denied that the relevant documents were not placed before the detaining authority as sought to be contended by the petitioner. She submitted that the in-camera statements of the two witnesses would show the violent tendencies and criminal activities of the detenu, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, she also argued that the Marathi version of the order, as well as the English version, would show that there is absolutely no variance in both versions.

The bench after perusal of both the English and Marathi version of the order noted that the ground recorded in paragraph 2 of the English version is not consistent with the purpose of issuing detention order as recorded in the Marathi version.

“A perusal of the said paragraph of the English version of the detention order would show that there is a positive assertion that the detenu has committed offences of the type of murder; however, the Marathi version of the detention order does not record any such positive assertion. Thus, the learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in submitting that such variance in both versions of the detention order has deprived the detenu of making an effective representation against his detention” the bench noted.

The bench while setting aside the detention order recorded that the variance in both the version of the detention order had left the detenu confused for making an effective representation.

“Thus, variance in the Marathi as well as the English version of the ground of detention recorded in the detention order, as noted aforesaid, left the detenu confused and deprived the detenu of making an effective representation against his detention. Any non-application of mind by the detaining authority would amount to a breach of constitutional imperative and would render continued detention impermissible and illegal,” the bench recorded.

Case title: Vilas Ashok Aawale vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.