# CBAJURAM v. STATE OF JAMMU I: KASllMlll

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 872
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-03-03
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/cbajuram-v-state-of-jammu-i-kasllmlll-4977
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

872
CBAJURAM
v.
STATE OF JAMMU I: KASllMlll
March 3, 1970
[M. HIDAVATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAV AND I. D. DUA, JI.)
lammu & Kashrrnr Prtventiv• D•t•ntion Act, 19~Dettntion raukr
s. 3(2) road with s. 5-Detenu's right to make repr-ntation ii t/ejuted
i/ grounds not explllined IP him in language understood by him or if
grounds are vague-Detention becomes illegal.
The petitioner was detained under the order of the District Maaiatrate.
Jammu passed under s. 3(2) read withs. S of the Jammu & Kaabmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30,
1969. He filed a petition
under Art, 32 challenging his detention. Later he withdrew the· ori&inal
petition and with the leave of the court filed another. In Ibis petition it
was urged that the grounds of detention supplied to him were m F.qlilh
which he as an illiterate person did not undentand; they wexe also not
eJ<plained to him in the language undentood by him. It was further uraed
that the grounds were vague. On behalf of the State the file relating to
the detention of the petitioner was produced in court and att.ention was
drawn to the copy of the grotmds setved on the petitioner at the bottom
of which there was a thumb-mark alleged to be that of the petitioner and
an endonement to the effect that the grounds were eJ<plained to the
detenu in Urdu. The Additional SCctetary to t!ie Government filed an
affidavit in reply to the first petition andthe Under Secretary in rq>Jy to
the second petition.
HELD: (i) It is absolutely necessary that when dealing with a detenu
who cannot read or understand English language or any language at all,
that the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as poui·
A
B
c
D
IC
ble in the language he understands so that he can avail himself of the
statutory right of making a representation. To hand over to him a docu·
ment written in English and to obtain his thumb-impression on it in token
of his having received the same does not comply with the requirements of r
the Jaw which gives a very valuable right to the detenu to make a represen·
tation. [877 BJ
(ii) The endonement on the copy <If the grounds in the original file
were in different inks and therefore the document could not be taken at its
face value.
In the copy of the grounds filed with the affidavit on behalf
of the State in reply to the first petition there was no endorsement to the
effect that the contents had been eJ<plained to the detenu in Urdu. The
G
affidavit filed by the Under-Secretary in reply to the second petition could
not be relied on because it bore erasures and substitution of. words at a
significant place. [875 H-876 Cl
When there was contradiction between the affidavits filed by the peti·
tioner and by the State the Court had to determine which one was acceptable giving all the benefit of doubt to the detenu. In the present case the
aflid~vit of the detenu had to be preferred and it must be held that the requirement df explaining the grounds to the detenu in his own language
was not complied with [875 D; 876 HJ
(iii) The grounds charged the petitioner wi.th ~av!ng conspired with
some leaders of Democratic conference, and havmg 10c1ted landless people
H
,
CHAJli RAM V· J, & K. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
873
A
of Rspura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mechaof RSpura Tebsil to forcibly occupy the )and comprised in Nandpur Mechato evict them. No details of the leaders of the conference or of the persons incited or the dates ori which he conspired or incited the squatters or
the time when such conference took place were mentioned. It would be
impossible for anybody to make a representation against such .grounds
which, on the authorities of this Court. must be held to be vague. [877 D-E]
B
Accordingly the detention of t~e petitioner must be declared illegal.
c
D
E
F
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No .. 32 of 1970.
.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus .
. H. K. Puri, for the petitioner.
R. N. S

## Text

872
CBAJURAM
v.
STATE OF JAMMU I: KASllMlll
March 3, 1970
[M. HIDAVATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAV AND I. D. DUA, JI.)
lammu & Kashrrnr Prtventiv• D•t•ntion Act, 19~Dettntion raukr
s. 3(2) road with s. 5-Detenu's right to make repr-ntation ii t/ejuted
i/ grounds not explllined IP him in language understood by him or if
grounds are vague-Detention becomes illegal.
The petitioner was detained under the order of the District Maaiatrate.
Jammu passed under s. 3(2) read withs. S of the Jammu & Kaabmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30,
1969. He filed a petition
under Art, 32 challenging his detention. Later he withdrew the· ori&inal
petition and with the leave of the court filed another. In Ibis petition it
was urged that the grounds of detention supplied to him were m F.qlilh
which he as an illiterate person did not undentand; they wexe also not
eJ<plained to him in the language undentood by him. It was further uraed
that the grounds were vague. On behalf of the State the file relating to
the detention of the petitioner was produced in court and att.ention was
drawn to the copy of the grotmds setved on the petitioner at the bottom
of which there was a thumb-mark alleged to be that of the petitioner and
an endonement to the effect that the grounds were eJ<plained to the
detenu in Urdu. The Additional SCctetary to t!ie Government filed an
affidavit in reply to the first petition andthe Under Secretary in rq>Jy to
the second petition.
HELD: (i) It is absolutely necessary that when dealing with a detenu
who cannot read or understand English language or any language at all,
that the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as poui·
A
B
c
D
IC
ble in the language he understands so that he can avail himself of the
statutory right of making a representation. To hand over to him a docu·
ment written in English and to obtain his thumb-impression on it in token
of his having received the same does not comply with the requirements of r
the Jaw which gives a very valuable right to the detenu to make a represen·
tation. [877 BJ
(ii) The endonement on the copy <If the grounds in the original file
were in different inks and therefore the document could not be taken at its
face value.
In the copy of the grounds filed with the affidavit on behalf
of the State in reply to the first petition there was no endorsement to the
effect that the contents had been eJ<plained to the detenu in Urdu. The
G
affidavit filed by the Under-Secretary in reply to the second petition could
not be relied on because it bore erasures and substitution of. words at a
significant place. [875 H-876 Cl
When there was contradiction between the affidavits filed by the peti·
tioner and by the State the Court had to determine which one was acceptable giving all the benefit of doubt to the detenu. In the present case the
aflid~vit of the detenu had to be preferred and it must be held that the requirement df explaining the grounds to the detenu in his own language
was not complied with [875 D; 876 HJ
(iii) The grounds charged the petitioner wi.th ~av!ng conspired with
some leaders of Democratic conference, and havmg 10c1ted landless people
H
,
CHAJli RAM V· J, & K. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
873
A
of Rspura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mechaof RSpura Tebsil to forcibly occupy the )and comprised in Nandpur Mechato evict them. No details of the leaders of the conference or of the persons incited or the dates ori which he conspired or incited the squatters or
the time when such conference took place were mentioned. It would be
impossible for anybody to make a representation against such .grounds
which, on the authorities of this Court. must be held to be vague. [877 D-E]
B
Accordingly the detention of t~e petitioner must be declared illegal.
c
D
E
F
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No .. 32 of 1970.
.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus .
. H. K. Puri, for the petitioner.
R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatlluah C.J. · The petitioner Chaju Ram was detained
under the orders of the District Magistrate, Janunu passed under
s. 3(2) read withs. 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Deten·
tion Act, 1964 on March 30, 1969. The order was served on
him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorsement by the Station House Officer to the effect that in compliance
with the District Magistrate's order, he arrested Chaju at 6.30
P.M. and that the contents of the order were explained to him in
Urdu by reading over the same to him in token of which his
thumb impression was obtained on the face of the order. B !Death
. this endorsement, there is a thumb impression although it is not
stated the~e whose thumb impression it is. In any event, this was
in compliance with the direction given in the order itself that
notice of the order should be given to Sh. Chaju by reading over
the same to him.
·
As required by s. 8 of the Act, grounds of the order of detention had to be disclosed to Chaiμ.
It is claimed that this was done
on April 6, 1969 and that 'order has been produced before us.
The grounds sl!lted as follows :
G
· . "I. That Shri Chhaju s/o Gura is (sic) conspiracy
with some other leaders of Democratic Conference-incited landless people of. RSpura Tehsil to forcibly occupy
the land compnsed m Nandpur Mechanised Fann with
· t~e full knowledge that such action 0n their · part' was
likely to lead to disturbances in a sensitive border area.
·
2. As a result of his activities some area of the
Nandpur Farm was occupied by landless peoole bet-
~ee,n l 8;3-69 to ~5"2-69 who a!SQ constructed 'Jhug1!'~ on 1t.
Chha1u told them to persist in their illegal
L!OSupCI{NP)70-11
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3
activities and urged them to resist violently any attempt
to evict them.
He told them the State Gov(\rnment
would agree to allpt this land to them only if a situD;tion
were created in which two or three persons were killed
by Police fuing.
3. Squatters were evicted on 2~-3-68 so!11e of ~horn
offered resistance.
Even after this, Chha1u continued
his campaign of asking people of forcibly occupy vacant
Gove11IIIllent land on a massive scale with the avowed
objective of repeating a "Naxalbari" in our State."
We shall ,co1lle to these grounds later. Chaju did not make a
representation against his detent!on. and on August 29, 196~, ~
Advisory Board held that the Distnct Magistrate was fully JUStified and that there was suffieient cause for his detention.
Chaju made a petition 'under Art. 32 of the Constitution for
his release by a writ of habeas corpus in this Court.
Rule nisi on
this petition was issued on- December 2, 1969. The petition was
made from jail and contained not much material except to say
that he had been illegaly ·detained for one year and was languishing in jail. In reply to the rule nisi, an affidavit was filed by the
Additional Secretary to the Government of Jarnmu & Kashmir
Home Department.
However, Chaju withdrew that pe ition wifh
permission to file another petition and he has filed a second petition on January 20, 1970, In this petition he has stated in paras
3, 4 and 5 that he was given some papers five days after ·aaisakhi
(which fell on April 13, 1969) and being an illiterate person, he
could not read the contents of the papers given. He also alleged
that he was not explained the grounds of his detention and therefore he was deprived of his right of making a representat'on under
the statute.
He also alleged that the grounds on which his detention had been ordered were vague and were not 'sufficient for him
to make a representation if he cared.
At the hearing w~ confined the case only to these two points,
namely, whether Cha1u was served the grounds of detention on
April 6, 1969 as claimed in the reply affidavit and whether the
contents of the grounds were explained to him in a lamruage
understood by him, and secondly whether the grounds were" sufficie!1tly precise and detailed for Chaju to make a proper representatmn as he was entitled to do under the Preventive Detention
Act.
In regard to the first question, there is an affidavit sworn to by
the Under-Secretary to the Government filed in answer to the
second petition made in. this Court. It is stated in that liffi.davit
A
E
c
D
E.
•
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHAJU RAM V• J. & K. STATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
875 •
that the grounds were duly served upon the detenu, and in t!>ken
of his having understood the same, he affixed his thumb impression thereon.
In answer to the allegation that the grounds were
5ervi:d on him five days after Baishakhi, the affidavit does not seek
to controvert it but only says that the detention order was duly
read over to the detenu and the contents of the order explained
to him in he language he understood.
Therefore the claim of the
Government is that on both the occasions, that is to say, when the
detention order was served on him and also when the grounds
were handed over to him, the contents of the documents were read
over to him and translated to liim in the language he understood
(Urdu) and therefore there was compliance with the provisions
of the law.
Now, if we accept the affidavit of the Government, it is obvious
that the affidavit of the detenu must be false.
Contrary-wise, if
we accept the affidavit of the detenu, we must reject the material
placed before us on behalf of the Government. In view of the
contradictory nature of these two affidavits, we went into the
matter very closely and satisfied ourselves which of the two affidavits is acceptable, giving all the benefit of doubt to the detenu,
To begin with, the order of detention had an endorsement on it
that the order should be communicated to Chaju by reading over
the same to him.
This was probably done because we find an
endorsement of the Station House Officer that he had read it over
to him in Urdu.
The ·thumb impression on this document docs
not state that: it is the thumb impression of Chaju, but as he has
not raised a controversy about it, we accept it as his.
In contrast to this order, the grounds of detention did ·not have
an enddrsement that the grounds should be explained to Chaju
in the language he understood. In the affidavit in answer to the
first petition, the grounds were filed but there was no endorsement
on the copy of the grounds showing that it had been so read to
him in Urdu and that he was explained the contents. Mr.
Sachthey, however brought to our notice the original file in which
the copy of, the ~rounds which was served upon the detenu has an
endorsement in Urdu that thev had been read over and fully
explained. to him in Urdu.
~re is a thumb impression and
against the thumb impression is noted that it is that of Chaju.
The date is April 6, i969.
The question is wh!ther in view of this endorsement we must
hold that Chaju was properly explained the grounds of detention
in Urdu which he understands. In our judgment, we cannot
accept these documents at their face value. To beitln with. the
three endorsements on the copy, that is to say, (a) that the document was read over to him ill Urdu, (b) the thumb impression ·
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
and ( c) the note that it is the thumb impression of Chaju, are in
A
two different inks if not three.
This raiSed a suspicion, that these
might have been written later around the thumb impression taken
from Chaju as was done when the order of detention was served
on him. It may be recalled that at that time also there was an
endorsement in English that it had been read over to him, but
· nothing had been written around the thumb impression of Chaju
B
whether in Urdu or otherwise to show that the thumb impression
was that of Chaju.
We looked carefully at the affidavit filed in
this Court which is a cyclostyled document. We find in para 6 a
correction in a very significant place.
This correction has been
made by typing certain words in the place between two lines with
an oblique showing that it is an omission.
The words beneath
C
those added ..yords have been erased although some of them in
part still appear.
Now it is signific<int that the words which have
been added are as follows:
"understood the same he";
and the para now read as follows :
"Referring to para 7 of the petition, I say that the
grounds were duly served upon the detenu and in token
of having understood the same he affixed his thump
impression thereon."
(under lining by us)
The underlined words are the words which have been added in
the place between the two lines.
It appears that what has been
erased must be some other words appropriate to what preceded
and what followed.
In our opinion the paragraph must have
read:
;'Referring to para 7 of the petition I say that the
grounds were duly served upon the detenu and in token
of having received the same he affil[ed his thumb impression thereon."
The underlined words were erased and others substituted. There
would be no occasion to erase one set of writing and write
another if the words were there.
Of course Mr. Sachthey ingeniously suggests that this may be
a case of erroneous typing necessitating the correction; but this
correction comes at a significant spot after the detenu has sworn
an affidavit that he was not explained the grounds of the detention in the la~gua_ge which he understood, and further the original
document wh•ch ts produced does not seem to bear authenticity
because of"the changes of ink. In these circumstances and regard
being had to the fact that 011 the previo:is occasion in the affidavit
there was no mention of having read over the grounds to him in
the language he understood. we are constrained to hold that we
D
E
F
G
H
.. ---
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
CHAJU RAM V· J. & K. STATE (Hidayatul/ah, CJ.)
877
shoulg not go by the affidavit of the Under-Secretary, ~ut in. ~re
ference a,ccept the affidavit of the detenu.
The c;letenu 1s an illiterate person and it is absolutely necessary that when we are del!llirig with a detenu who cannot read or understand English
language or any language at all that the groundS of detention
should be explained to him as early as possible in the language he
understands so that he can avail himself of the statutory right of
making a representation.
To hand over to him the document
written in English and to. obtain his thumb impression on it in
token of his having received the same does not comply with the
requirements of the Jaw which gives a very valuable right to the
detenu to make a representation which right is frustrated by
handing over to him the grounds of detention in an alien language.
We are therefore compelled to hold in this case that the requirement of explaining the grounds to the detenu in his own language
was not complied with.
Even as to the grounds, we have something to say.
The
pounds charge him with having conspired with some leaders of
Democratic Conference and having incited landless people of
RSpura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur
_Mechanised Farm and. to have persuaded them to_rcsist violently
any attempt to evict them.
No details of the le.1ders of the Conference or of the persons incited or the dates on which he conspired or incited the squatters or the time when such conference
took place, are mentioned. It would be impossible for anybody
to make a representation against such grounds. These grounds,
on the authorities of this Court, too numerous to be cited here,
must be held to be vague.
Therefore on both the twin grounds,
namely, that he was deprived of his right to make a representation
and also because the grounds in themselves were very vague, we
~ust hold that there was no compliance with the law as laid down
m the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act.
The result, ·
therefore, is that the detention must be declared to be unlawful
and Cha1u must be declared to be entitled to his liberty.
He is
ordered to be released.
The detenu was questioned by us and
he expressed a desire that he may not be released in Delhi
because he has no means of going back.
He asked to be releas'.
ed in .Tammu.
We direct therefore that he sha'l be taken back
t~ tl_ie place where he Was in detention in J ammu and released
w1th111 the shortest possible time. -
G.C.
Petition allowed.