HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR HCP No.389/2018 Date of decision:22.04.2019 [PRECEDENT] and anr. Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice [ENTITY], Judge. Appearance: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. [ENTITY], Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. [ENTITY], Sr. AAG.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No 1) By the instant petition, petitioner has sought quashment of the order of
detention bearing No.58/DMA/PSA/DET/2018 dated 09.10.2018. In terms of said order, [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] resident of Kathsoo Tehsil Sallar District Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been taken into preventive custody by invoking powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2) The petitioner's case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue on 01.09.2018 was arrested by the personnel of Police Station, Srigufwara and thereafter was implicated in case FIR No.63/2018 P/S Srigufwara. The petitioner applied for bail which was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, on 03.10.2018 but he was not released and instead has been taken into preventive custody in terms of impugned detention order. The respondents are stated to have ignored to provide material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention and thus deprived the detenue of his [ACT]al and Statutory rights. Grounds of detention are stated to be vague, baseless, non-existent and unfounded.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and same were read over and explained to him. The grounds taken by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The learned counsel for the respondents has made available detention records to lend support to the case set up in the counter affidavit.
4) Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the detenue has also been disabled from making an effective representation by not supplying him the translated copies of the ground of detention which are in English language besides being in a hyper technical language which the detenue is not in a position to understand.
5) The submission appears to have substance. The records do not contain anything which would suggest that the translated copies of the grounds of detention have been supplied to the detenue which has prejudiced the detenue in the exercise of his right to make an effective representation against his detention. For this, Para 13 of the judgment in "[PRECEDENT]: shall be quite apposite to be reproduced herein:
"Lastly, Urdu translations of quite a few documents and statements referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority were admittedly not supplied to the detenu at all and the only explanation given by the counsel for the respondents at the hearing has been that most of these documents (Urdu translations whereof were not supplied) comprised statements of accounts which had figures in English with some English words written in capital letters and some documents were in Hindi and Gujarati and the record (statements of [ENTITY], her sister [ENTITY] and one [ENTITY], all co-conspirators of the detenu, recorded during the investigation) clearly shows that the petitioner knows English figures, understands English words written in capital letters and can also converse or talk in Hindi and Gujarati and as such the non- supply of Urdu translations of these documents cannot be said to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner in the matter of making a representation against his detention. In our view, the explanation is hardly satisfactory and cannot condone the non-supply of Urdu translations of these documents. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Pakistani national and Urdu seems to be his mother tongue and a little knowledge of English figures, ability to read English words written in capital letters and a smattering knowledge of Hindi or Gujarati would not justify the denial of Urdu translations to him of the material documents and statements referred to as incriminating documents in the grounds and relied upon by the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction. In fact, the claim made before us on behalf of the detenu that he only knows Urdu cannot be brushed aside as false especially in view of the fact that the same was accepted on the earlier occasion by the Advisory Board who had actually opined that failure to supply Urdu translations of grounds of detention and documents had vitiated the earlier order of detention and following this opinion respondent No. 1 had revoked the said order. Moreover, with the assistance of counsel on either side we have ourselves gone through many of these documents and statements and it is not possible to say that most of them are merely statements of account containing figures in English with English words written in capital letters. These documents recovered from three flats in three different societies, include, for instance, documents like bills and vouchers showing purchases made from some shops, while a large number of documents are in Hindi and Gujarati and relate to transactions in contraband articles like gold, silver, watches, etc., and comprise accounts of such transactions, the figures as well as recitals pertaining to which are entirely in Gujarati. All these, in our view, are material documents which have obviously influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction and these are all in a script or language not understood by detenu, and, therefore, the non-supply of Urdu translations of these documents has clearly prejudiced the petitioner in the exercise of his right to make an effective representation against his detention and hence the safeguard contained in [SECTION] is clearly violated."
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that that the detenue had been admitted to bail in FIR No.63/2018 but this fact has not been made mention of in the grounds of detention though reference to said FIR has been made. Either detaining authority has been kept in dark or otherwise detaining authority has not applied its mind properly. While detaining a person under [ACT], detaining authority is under a legal obligation to analyze all the circumstances and material and then to gather conclusion about the requirement of depriving a person of his personal liberty. Non-mention about the grant of bail is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind. Similar situation has been dealt with by the Apex Court. It is quite relevant to quote following portion from para 8 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT]
"We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed. In the result we set aside the judgement of the Bombay High Court under appeal, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith "
7) Right to liberty as guaranteed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can be negated in view of [SECTION] of the [ACT] which is an exception to [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The said exception authorizes the concerned authorities to pass preventive detention but while passing such orders, the authority concerned is required to be alive to the personal liberty of a person and such power shall be exercised in a manner which may not have the trappings of depriving a person of the guaranteed liberty. In short an exceptional case has to be made out for passing the order of preventing a person from acting in any manner which shall be prejudicial, in the instant case, to the security of the State but while doing so procedural safeguards are to be respected. Breach in observing the procedural safeguards gives right to the detenue to claim that he has been prejudiced as his liberty has been curtailed de horse the law. In this connection it shall be quite relevant to quote paras 37 and 38 of the judgment rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case captioned "[ENTITY] Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr", reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244:
"37. As observed in [PRECEDENT] "5 The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard."
As observed by Mr. Justice [ENTITY] of the United States Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath:(US p.
179) " It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule of law and rule of whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards are the main assurances that there will be equal justice under law".
38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society's assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experience".
8) For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention impugned is unsustainable, as such, quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
9) Registry to return the detention record to the learned counsel for the respondents.
([ENTITY]) Judge [ENTITY] 22.04.2019 "[ENTITY], PS"