N Cr A No 189 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 10 and 11 1961 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application No 19 of 1961
A section Bobde B A Masodkar M L Vaidya M M Kinkhede and Ganpat Rai for the appellant
M C Setalvad Attorney General for India B Sen and R H Dhebar for the respondents
January 31
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 919 SINHA C J
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated July 11 1961 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench dismissing the appellant s application under article 226 of the Constitution read with section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he had prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the State of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate of Nagpur directing them to produce the petition in Court and to set him at liberty
This application was heard by us on January 8 and 9 1962 and after hearing Shri A section Bobde for the appellant and the learned Attorney General for the State of Maharashtra we directed that the appellant be released forthwith and that the reasons for our judgment will follow later
We now proceed to set out our reasons for the order passed on that day
It appears that an Order of Detention under section 31 aii of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act was made by the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 10 1961
The order of Detention is in these terms No
CCX 2 of 1961 office of the District Magistrate Nagpur Dt
10th April 1961
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SEC
31a ii OF THE 
Whereas I am satisfied that it is necessary to prevent Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agarwal of Nagpur from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that therefore it is necessary to detain him
Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred on me by Section 31aii of the 920  I Dinkarrao Hanjantrao Deshmukh IAS District Magistrate Nagpur hereby direct that the said Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agarwal be so detained
Given this 10th day of April 1961 under my signature and seal
Seal of the SdDH Deshmukh DM Nagpur District Magistrate Nagpur He also directed that the appellant should be detained in the District Prison Thana and that for the purpose of the Bombay Condition of Detention order 1951 be treated as a Class II Prisoner
The grounds of detention were served on the same day
The substance of the grounds is that since his release from previous detention in October 1960 he had been instigating persons at Nagpur to defy and disobey reasonable directions and lawful orders issued by competent authorities from time to time prohibiting and regulating processions and assemblies at Nagpur that by use of highly provocative words expressions and slogans in meetings and processions in Nagpur in which he took a prominent part he had instigated persons on several occasions at Nagpur to indulge in acts of violence and mischief and to create disturbance in the city of Nagpur and that he had been acting since October 1960 in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in that city
And then follow notable particular  of his activities running into five closely typed pages and contained in many paragraphs
In his petition to the High Court the petitioner raised a number of grounds of attack against the legality of the order of his detention and most of those grounds have been reiterated in this Court
We do not think it necessary to go into all the points raised on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel
In our opinion it is enough to say that we are satisfied 921 that in the circumstances of this case the provisions of article 225 of the Constitution have not been fully complied with and that therefore the appellant had not the full opportunity provided or contemplated by that Article of making his representation against the Order of Detention
In this connection it is necessary to state the following facts
The appellant wrote a letter to the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 19 1961 to the effect that he had been served with an Order of Detention dated April 10 1961 and that the Order and the grounds of detention being in English he was unable to understand them and therefore asked for a Hindi version of the same so that he may be able to follow and understand the charges levelled against him and take necessary steps for his release from jail
He raised some other questions also in that letter but it is not necessary to refer to them here
To that letter the District Magistrate replied by his letter dated April 23 1961 the second paragraph of which in the following terms sets out his views of the matter The order of detention and the grounds of detention already communicated to you are given in English which is the official language in this district
It is not possible to supply any translation of the same for is sic it legally necessary under the 
The order and the grounds of detention served on you were fully explained to you by the Police Officer in the presence of the DSP Nagpur City The High Court dealing with this contention on behalf of the detenue came to the conclusion that under the Constitution English still continued to be the official language of the State of Maharashtra and that service of the Order in English upon the detenue was sufficient compliance with 922 the requirements of cl
5 of article 22 of the Constitution
It also held that the failure of the District Magistrate to supply the grounds in Hindi did not have the effect of preventing him from making his representation to the authorities
Furthermore the High Court pointed out that the District Magistrate had stated in his letter that the grounds were explained to the appellant in Hindi by the Police Officer at the time the Order and the grounds were served upon him
In the view of the High Court therefore the explanation or translation of the grounds by the Police Officer at the time he served those on the appellant should be deemed to be enough to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention
Mr Bobde for the appellant has vehemently argued that the requirements of the Constitution had not been complied with inasmuch as cl
5 of article 22 of the Constitution required that the grounds on which the Order of Detention had been based had to be communicated to the detained person
His argument further was that communication of the grounds was not equivalent to serving the grounds in English upon a person who was not conversant with the English language and that oral translation by the police officer said to have been made to the detenue was not sufficient compliance with the requirements of the constitutional provisions which must be fully satisfied in order that the detenue may be in a position to make an effective representation against the Order of Detention
He also contended that we do not know in what terms the police officer translated the lengthy document or whether his translation was correct
On behalf of the State of Maharashtra the learned Attorney General first attempted to show that the appellant knew English
In this connection he has referred to the affidavit of the District Magistrate the exact words of which are as follows 923 He the detenue had also asked me to supply the grounds in Hindi to enable him to understand the same
I admit that I had replied to this letter and had declined to communicate the grounds in Hindi
I deny that this has been done with a view to keep the petitioner in dark as to the grounds of his detention
The petitioner as per my information is an educated man and can understand English
The question that the petitioner did not understand the grounds therefore does not arise
I deny that the petitioner is entitled to receive the grounds in Hindi
The grounds were supplied to the petitioner in the court language and also they were explained to him by the Police Inspector Shri WB Bobde who had served them on the petitioner   That statement of the District Magistrate is apparently based on the following statement in the affidavit of Shri WB Bobde the Police Inspector The Order of Detention as well as the grounds of detention were translated by me orally in Hindi and explained to Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agrawal in the presence of the District Superintendent of Police Nagpur City
 It has not been found by the High Court that the appellant knew enough English to understand the grounds of his detention
The High Court has only stated that he has studied upto 7th Hindi Standard which is equivalent to 3rd English Standard
The High Court negatived the contention raised on behalf of the appellant not on the ground that the appellant knew enough English to understand the case against him but on the ground as already indicated that the service upon him of the Order and grounds of detention in English was enough communication to him to enable him to 924 make his representation
We must therefore proceed on the assumption that the appellant did not know enough English to understand the grounds contained in many paragraphs as indicated above in order to be able effectively to make his representation against the Order of Detention
The learned Attorney General has tried to answer this contention in several ways
He has first contended that when the Constitution speaks of communicating the grounds of detention to the detenue it means communication in the official language which continues to be English secondly the communication need not be in writing and the translation and explanation in Hindi offered by the Inspector of Police while serving the Order of Detention and the grounds would be enough compliance with the requirements of the law and the Constitution and thirdly that it was not necessary in the circumstances of the case to supply the grounds in Hindi in our opinion this was not sufficient compliance in this case with the requirements of the Constitution as laid down in cl
5 of article 22
To a person who is not conversant with the English language service of the Order and the grounds of detention in English with their oral translation or explanation by the police officer serving them does not fulfil the requirements of the law
As has been explained by this Court in the case of The State of Bombay vs Atma Ram Sridhar Vidya 1 cl
5 of article 22 requires that the grounds of his detention should be made available to the detenue as soon as may be and that the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the Order should also be afforded to him
In order that the detenue should have that opportunity it is not sufficient that he has been physically delivered the means of knowledge with which to make his representation
In order that the detenue should be in a position effectively to make his representation against the Order he should have knowledge of the grounds of 925 detention which are in the nature of the charge against him setting out the kinds of prejudicial acts which the authorities attribute to him
Communication in this context must therefore mean imparting to the detenue 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 detenue would not amount to communication in this context must mean bringing home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts and circumstances on which the Order of Detention is based
We do not agree with the High Court in its conclusion that in every case communication of the grounds of detention in English so long as it continues to be the official language of the State is enough compliance with the requirements of the Constitution
If the detained person is conversant with the English language he will naturally be in a position to understand the gravamen of the charge against him and the facts and circumstances on which the order of detention is based
But to a person who is not so conversant with the English language in order to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution the detenue must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand
and in a script which he can read if he is a literate person
The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of movement throughout the territory of India and has laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention
It has also by way of limitations upon the freedom of personal liberty recognised the right of the State to legislate for preventive detention subject to certain safeguards in favour of the detained 926 person as laid down in cls
4  5 of article 22
One of those safeguards is that the detained person has the right to be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made against him in order that he may be able to make his representation against the order of dentention
In our opinion in the circumstances of this case it has not been shown that the appellant had the opportunity which the law contemplates in his favour making an effective representation against his detention
On this ground alone we declare his detention illegal and set aside the Order of the High Court and the Order of Detention passed against him
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The detenue was served with the order of detention and the grounds in English
He did not know English and asked for a translation of these in Hindi
This request was refused on the grounds that the order and the grounds had been orally translated to him at the time they were served upon him and that English still being the official language communication of the order and grounds in English was in accordance with the law and the Constitution
 Held that the provisions of article 225 of the Constitution were not complied with and the detention was illegal
Article 225 required that the grounds should be communicated to the detenue as soon as may be and that he should be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order
Communication in this context meant bringing home to the detenue effective knowledge of the facts and grounds on which the order was based
To a person who was not conversant with the English language in order to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution the detenue must be given the grounds in a language which he can understand and in a script which he can read if he is a literate person
Mere oral translation at the time of service was not enough