The Bombay High Court has quashed the detention of one Aawale, 49, observing that the grounds for his detention differed in the English and Marathi version of the detention order. This has deprived the detenu of making an effective representation thereby violating his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering his detention illegal.
A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Gauri Godse recently quashed a detention order passed against Aawale 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,” the bench said, adding: “Thus, the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated, thereby rendering his detention illegal.”
Father of accused challenges detention
The HC was hearing a plea filed by Vilas Aawale, detenue’s father, challenging the detention order against his son.
His Advocate Satyavrat Joshi pointed out the difference in the English and the Marathi versions of the detention order. Joshi argued that the detention order in English mentioned that there was a murder case registered against him. However, there no such mention in the Marathi version.
Additional Public Prosecutor SD Shinde argued that there was no variance in the English and the Marathi versions of the order. She also submitted in-camera statements of two witnesses which showed the violent tendencies and criminal activities of the detenu, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. She further
Differences in both versions leaves court perplexed
The bench noted that the variance in the Marathi as well as the English version of the detention order “left the detenu confused and deprived the detenu of making an effective representation against his detention”, the bench noted while quashing the detention order.
“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 concluded.
.jpg)
