# [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 918

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 918
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-07-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1962-supp-2-s-c-r-918-2355
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

W62
-.. -
.Jp~tH1'.J 3J.
918 SUPREME qbURT· REP$.'.F~ f~9621 SUPJ .
. jl.~~p~I.S:A.N
-~· :
.. , .. ,. ~· v .;·
~1·
.
-
~ •.
.THE'STATE Q.F M~HA°R:AsiI'l'RA & 0T~E.RS
(~.P. SINHA;-O<J., .. K. SUlljlA ~A~; ~: Rl\JAG0P~4
... AY}'Af'l(M·R;J,-R,~~u.r;>:SQ.lKA~ and 'ii'. ·I,,.
·
V.El'\.KATARA}b\ A'.IY AR,]].) .1
.. _
.. '
·_~
·~~-:~ ·~: ... .,,'
~- . '!: '"~-1
~~· ·-·~
~-'-'"..
'•
Pfeveiltive. ·Difeniion~Ord,~r ·aluf'grounds >;n )!J.nglisliD~tenue not.knowing. Englisli:..:..pppbitunity ti ',tnake .. rep';-e8enta.-
. tion; wh~ther .denie<J-Oon~ti(!'tio1i. of IiJf!ia', Ar~. )2(~)-~ ·
The-<jeteime:,Yas servM . }Vith
th~· o~d~r of· detention
and the grounds .in English. He did 1lOt know English ·and
asked for a translation of these .in Hindi.
This., r~quesf was
refused on the ·grounds that the order and the grounds h"ad
been ora1ly translat~d t? him at th:.e
time they \vere' seryed
upon him and that English still being the official !ang-uage
communication o'f. the order and groun<:Js in_ English was in
accordance with the law.and the Constitt1tion.
Held, th~t the provisio:ns of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution were not. cpmplied wjth a9cj the c\~te11ti,o.n··was il)egal.
Article 22(5) rcqujred,Wat the· gwμf\d~ .sl)ould, bC: ·.coi;rimunic~ted to the detenmf iis. soon as ma)'.J:ie'ahd· that: hi! shou11fbe
afforded the earlies< oppoi't!lnffy of ·.·waJdng. ;a,\ r.~presentation
agairi.st the ·order.
Gomrriu'hic:atio'n. . .Ut: thiS cOhtcxt ·meant
bringin'{hom~ tq ihe'·i:IO'tenμ6·"e@tt1vii'kllowleage ci~·, · xhe: fl\cts
l\Hd 'groμnds on'whicln!le·ohlcr:wai•baseti. 'foa.perso;1 who:.
, was-ln<;it. conversan\'~with 'tl\c,.;:Englljli.;.fan_gijagl', !n.:,or<J~r .to·
'·,satisfy. the requirj:')ncnt:.of•the ;Gon~tituuon, the detenue. niust.
-l:ic gi'ven. th!' ·gr()unds in:a:';J,anguage.wh!cli ho·. ca~n,. ur(dp{)i\and
and irl a script whfoh,'he
caaj~.adiif..J:)e iS'"1·<Jiieya,t2· .petfo11.
J\1ere ?ral transfa':ti~.n'at'ih~'time'iir sei":'tce was:llo~'Ontiugh: .
~
.}
- •
,..,
•
" ·'' • . : II.
11 -·
..
•
-
C.R1Mil!IAL APPE!XATE, JtmtsnrnTro}< ; .Dr. :A.
'
•
~
~
:. :
¥
'
'
~
,,, -
'
~'
"
.No. 189.of ·Hl61'.' ..
...
' ,
·:.,.
., ,.
·, ..
'
•,
. '
•, . ' ..
·~· ~
"
. '· ..
Ap~eal by-· spe~a:l:l!l,ai~.J~oiri,.the,' -ju_dgment
._aiid
or~r .datetl jf.uJ31.-JO:'·itnd·ll,19~),:Qf the
·B.omb~y .High (fourt: rN<Lgpur iJ:leilc)l.);. ·.in· 'Ci-i'mirial
·Appliqa.tion No. '1~ .. of 01.1)'\lL,
•
~
A. S. Bo1jM; ,if::'·A: .. "Masoitkar;~.iJf .. L. Vaidya,
M. M .. Ki,nkheae Aiid. Q~ripat ;Rai,.forJμ,e ·\tppellitnt.
.
M. 0, Setalvid-( ·.Atf!?rwy,General: for India,
B. flen 'and R.l!, Dlielxirj,f.Q,r the Pespo~d!mts. ., .
19!32. Ja:nuary 3-i .. 'The 'Judgment qf th!l
09urt was deli:iere<:I' B.t · .
'.- ·
_, ·.
·
l'
'
"!
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
919
. SINlIA, C.J.-This appeal is. direot.ed against
the Judgment a.nd order dated July 11, 1961 of a
Division
Bench of the Bom b!ly High Court
(Nagpur Bench), dismissing the appellant's application, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, read
with s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
wherein he had pray&d for a writ of Habeas Corpus
against the State of Maharashtra and. the District
Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce
the petitioner 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. S. 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
s. 3(1) (a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act
(IV of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
was made by the District Megistrate (.)f Nagpur on
April IO, 1961. · The Order of. Detention is in
these ttrms :
·
·
"No.CC/X-(2) of 196:1
Office of the .
District Magistrate, Nagpur, · Dt. 10th April,
1961.
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SEC . . 3(1)(a)
(ii) OF T

## Text

W62
-.. -
.Jp~tH1'.J 3J.
918 SUPREME qbURT· REP$.'.F~ f~9621 SUPJ .
. jl.~~p~I.S:A.N
-~· :
.. , .. ,. ~· v .;·
~1·
.
-
~ •.
.THE'STATE Q.F M~HA°R:AsiI'l'RA & 0T~E.RS
(~.P. SINHA;-O<J., .. K. SUlljlA ~A~; ~: Rl\JAG0P~4
... AY}'Af'l(M·R;J,-R,~~u.r;>:SQ.lKA~ and 'ii'. ·I,,.
·
V.El'\.KATARA}b\ A'.IY AR,]].) .1
.. _
.. '
·_~
·~~-:~ ·~: ... .,,'
~- . '!: '"~-1
~~· ·-·~
~-'-'"..
'•
Pfeveiltive. ·Difeniion~Ord,~r ·aluf'grounds >;n )!J.nglisliD~tenue not.knowing. Englisli:..:..pppbitunity ti ',tnake .. rep';-e8enta.-
. tion; wh~ther .denie<J-Oon~ti(!'tio1i. of IiJf!ia', Ar~. )2(~)-~ ·
The-<jeteime:,Yas servM . }Vith
th~· o~d~r of· detention
and the grounds .in English. He did 1lOt know English ·and
asked for a translation of these .in Hindi.
This., r~quesf was
refused on the ·grounds that the order and the grounds h"ad
been ora1ly translat~d t? him at th:.e
time they \vere' seryed
upon him and that English still being the official !ang-uage
communication o'f. the order and groun<:Js in_ English was in
accordance with the law.and the Constitt1tion.
Held, th~t the provisio:ns of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution were not. cpmplied wjth a9cj the c\~te11ti,o.n··was il)egal.
Article 22(5) rcqujred,Wat the· gwμf\d~ .sl)ould, bC: ·.coi;rimunic~ted to the detenmf iis. soon as ma)'.J:ie'ahd· that: hi! shou11fbe
afforded the earlies< oppoi't!lnffy of ·.·waJdng. ;a,\ r.~presentation
agairi.st the ·order.
Gomrriu'hic:atio'n. . .Ut: thiS cOhtcxt ·meant
bringin'{hom~ tq ihe'·i:IO'tenμ6·"e@tt1vii'kllowleage ci~·, · xhe: fl\cts
l\Hd 'groμnds on'whicln!le·ohlcr:wai•baseti. 'foa.perso;1 who:.
, was-ln<;it. conversan\'~with 'tl\c,.;:Englljli.;.fan_gijagl', !n.:,or<J~r .to·
'·,satisfy. the requirj:')ncnt:.of•the ;Gon~tituuon, the detenue. niust.
-l:ic gi'ven. th!' ·gr()unds in:a:';J,anguage.wh!cli ho·. ca~n,. ur(dp{)i\and
and irl a script whfoh,'he
caaj~.adiif..J:)e iS'"1·<Jiieya,t2· .petfo11.
J\1ere ?ral transfa':ti~.n'at'ih~'time'iir sei":'tce was:llo~'Ontiugh: .
~
.}
- •
,..,
•
" ·'' • . : II.
11 -·
..
•
-
C.R1Mil!IAL APPE!XATE, JtmtsnrnTro}< ; .Dr. :A.
'
•
~
~
:. :
¥
'
'
~
,,, -
'
~'
"
.No. 189.of ·Hl61'.' ..
...
' ,
·:.,.
., ,.
·, ..
'
•,
. '
•, . ' ..
·~· ~
"
. '· ..
Ap~eal by-· spe~a:l:l!l,ai~.J~oiri,.the,' -ju_dgment
._aiid
or~r .datetl jf.uJ31.-JO:'·itnd·ll,19~),:Qf the
·B.omb~y .High (fourt: rN<Lgpur iJ:leilc)l.);. ·.in· 'Ci-i'mirial
·Appliqa.tion No. '1~ .. of 01.1)'\lL,
•
~
A. S. Bo1jM; ,if::'·A: .. "Masoitkar;~.iJf .. L. Vaidya,
M. M .. Ki,nkheae Aiid. Q~ripat ;Rai,.forJμ,e ·\tppellitnt.
.
M. 0, Setalvid-( ·.Atf!?rwy,General: for India,
B. flen 'and R.l!, Dlielxirj,f.Q,r the Pespo~d!mts. ., .
19!32. Ja:nuary 3-i .. 'The 'Judgment qf th!l
09urt was deli:iere<:I' B.t · .
'.- ·
_, ·.
·
l'
'
"!
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
919
. SINlIA, C.J.-This appeal is. direot.ed against
the Judgment a.nd order dated July 11, 1961 of a
Division
Bench of the Bom b!ly High Court
(Nagpur Bench), dismissing the appellant's application, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, read
with s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
wherein he had pray&d for a writ of Habeas Corpus
against the State of Maharashtra and. the District
Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce
the petitioner 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. S. 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
s. 3(1) (a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act
(IV of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
was made by the District Megistrate (.)f Nagpur on
April IO, 1961. · The Order of. Detention is in
these ttrms :
·
·
"No.CC/X-(2) of 196:1
Office of the .
District Magistrate, Nagpur, · Dt. 10th April,
1961.
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SEC . . 3(1)(a)
(ii) OF THE PREVENTIVJJJ. DETENTION AOT,
1950.
.
.
.• . .
Whereas I am satisfied that it is necessary to · prev:ent 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 <in me by Section 3(l)(a}(ii) of the
IIJIJ2
Hllfikisan
v.
Tfte814t<of
M ahuosAtra
Sinha C.J.
11161
---
B.rliJa
~·
1/1 S1at10/
II d.,aslar.J
Sinlto C.J.
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, I Dinkarrao
Hanjantrao Deshmukh, I.A.S .. District Magistrate, Nagpur hereby direct that ihe said Shri
Harikisa.n Kishorilal Agarwal be so detained.
Given this 1( th day of April 1961 under
mJ signature and seal.
Seal of the
Sd/D.H. Deshmukh
D.M. Nagpur
District Magistrate. Nagpur"
He also directed that the appellant should be
detained in the District Prison, Tbana, and that
for the purpose of the Bombay Condition of Detention Order, 1951, be treated as a Class II Prison.,r.
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 isaued by competent authorities, from
time to time, prohibiting and regulating processions and assemblies at Nagpur ; that by use of
highly provocative words, expreBBions and slogans
in meetings and proceBSions in Nagpur, in which
he took a prominent part, he had instigated persons
on several occasions at Nagpur to indulge in acts
of TI.olence 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
neoeseary 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 satiafied
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
921
that, in the circumstances of this case, the proviRions of Art. 22( 5) of the Constitution have not been
fully complied with, and that, therefore, the appellant had not the full opportunity provided or
contemplated by t.hat Article of making his representation against the Order of Detentidn.
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 urder of Detention d1>ted April IO, 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, 19ol, 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
(sio) it legally necessary under the Preventive
Detention Act, 1950. The order and the
grounds of detflntion served on you were
fully explained to you by the .Police Officer
in the presence of the D.8.P. Nagpur City."
The High Court, dealing with this contention
on behalf of the detenue, ca.me to the conclusion
that under the Constitution English still continued
to be the officia.l la.nguage of the State of Maharashtra., and that service of the Order in English
upon the detenue was sufficient compliance with
lHI
H.WU..
••
Tiw81ot.of
MaltM.uhlr•
Sinlla C.J.
J·
1161
Harilrisci
v,
n.s11z1 .. 1
Mttlior911ttr•
SW.• C.J.
922 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
theTequircmeute of cl. ( 5) of Art. 22 or' the Constitution. It also held that the failure oft.he 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
t.he ti:ne 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 PolicP Officer at the time he served those
on the appellant should be d .. emed to be enough to
enable him to make an effoctive representation
against hiR 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
Art. 22 of the Constitution required that the
grounds on which the Order of Detention had been
based had to be communicated .o 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 convel'l!ant with the English language, and
that oral tra.mlation by the police officer, said to
have been made to the detenue, was not sufficient
compliance \Vith 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 ~late !Jf Maharashtra, the
lea.med Attorney-General first attempted to show
that the appellant knew En11lish.
In this connection he hati referred to the aliidavit of the District
Magistmtc, the exact words of which arc as follows:
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR'rS
"He (the detenue) had also asked me to
supply the grounds in Hindi to enable him to
understand the same. l admit that I had
replied to this letter and had declined to eom- ·
munieate the grounds in Hindi. I deny that
this hJtS been done with a view to keep the
petitioner in.dark as to the grounds of his
detention. The petitioner as per my informa-
. tion, is ail educated ma~ and ean understand
English. The question th&t the petitioner
did not underStand the grounds, therefore.
does not a.rise. ·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 W.B. Bobde who had served them on the
t 't'
"
pe i 1oner ........ .
That statement of the District Magistrate is apparently based on the following statement, in the
affidavit of Shri W.B. 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, Xagpur
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, a,s
already indicated, that the service upon him of the
Order and grounds · of detention in English was ·
enough communication to him fo enable him to
116f
Hariltisan
v.
Tl., s1a1 .. f
M"'"""'"""
SiMo c.J.
I Ht
Horikis1111
v,
Tltt 111•1,.f
M .Ila as/ti'°
SU1~0 C.J.
924 SUPREiIE COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
make his representation. We must, therefore, proceed on the l\8811mption th11.t the appellant did not
know enough English to understand the l(rounds,
contained in many para.graphs, as indicated above,
in order to be able effectively to make his rt"presentation against the Order of Detention. The learned
Attorney-General has tried to answer this contention in several ways. He has first contf'nded that
when the Constitution speaks of communicating
the grounds of detention to the dotenu!'I, it means
communication in tho official language, which continues to be English ; 'llccondly the communication
nood 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
retjuirementa, of the law and thll Constitution ; and
thirdly, that it was not necessary in t.he 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 Art. 22.
To a person, who is not conversant with tho 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 Sf/JU of
Bomhay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vidya, (1) cl. (5) of
Art. 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
bo afforded to him. In order tha.t the detenuu
should have that opportunity, it is not sufficient thai
he h u been physically delivered the means of
knowledge with which to make his representation.
In order tha.t tho detenue should be in a position
effectively to make his represcnta.tion against tho
Order, ho should have knowledge of thti grounds of
(II (19SIJ s.c.R. 157.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
925
detention, which are in t.he 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 ground& 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 appt>llant 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 cir<'nmstances 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 complia:nce with the requirements of the
Constitution. If the detained person is conversant
with the English language, he will ne.turally he in
a position to understand the gravamen of the
charge against him and the- facts and circumstances
on which the order of detention is baw~d. But to a
person who is not so conversant with the Enp;lish
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 limit&tions 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
1962
Harikisan
v.
The State of
,\.laharashtra
Sinha C.J.
J962
a.au ..
v.
TIN St.u •f
14 Uar11s•tra
.SW.. c J.
JHI
FbU4? I.
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
person, as laid down in els. (4) & (5) of Art. 22.
One of those safegui.rds is that the detained peraon
has the right to be communicated the grounds on
which the ordor 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 oaee, 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 ~et aside the Order of the
High Court and the Order of Detention pa88ed against
him.
Appeal allo!jled.
THE HO:N'ORA:i;tY SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIA
MILLOWl\"ERS' ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
v.
THE SECRETARY, COfMBATOH.E DISTRlill
TEXTILE WO~KERS' UNION
[And connected avpeals)
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
I ndll8trial Di8puie-Boniu-Rehabilitation-Life of t.ztile
mnchinery-C/aim
in.
ruptel
of old machi~
Det1elopmntt
rebate-D•dwction-U ae
of
dtprtciatwn
amount-lnt.rut-Tu•o Reparate
conce,.,.._When
eonali·
It& one unit-Indian lnoome-kJ:c Act, 1922 (11of1922), •· IO
(2)(vi), Erp/anation (2), prolliao (b).
In respect of the di.pules which arose between certain
textile mills a.ild their respective employees in regard to the
bonus for the year 1956, the matter was reftrred to the Industrial Tribunal which made its award on September 5, ·19~8.
The Tribunal held, (1) that the period allowed for rehabilitating textile machlne1y should be 25 years and n'>t 15 as contended by the appellants, and that eome addition should be
made to the estimated life of the machinery by reference to
I