In a recent legal decision, the Supreme Court has declared that if a detained individual receives the grounds of detention in a language familiar to them and the document explicitly outlines their right to make representation, there is no necessity for additional verbal communication.
Addressing the challenge to detention based on alleged failure to inform the detenu of their rights, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution. According to the Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, prompt communication of the grounds of detention in a language the detenu understands, coupled with notification of the right to make representation, is crucial.
The court underscored that authorities must fulfill the dual responsibility of serving the grounds of detention promptly and ensuring that the detenu comprehends the basis of the detention order. The detenu’s right to challenge the order through representation hinges on their adequate knowledge of the grounds.
The court highlighted the interdependence of the two rights granted to detenus under Article 22(5), emphasizing that both rights aim to equip the detenu with the necessary information to challenge the detention order through representation.
Regarding the method of informing detenus about their right to make representation, the court clarified that communication could be either oral or written. However, it emphasized that a mere verbal explanation would be insufficient if the detenu does not understand the language used by the authorities.
The court acknowledged the possibility of a detenu refusing to receive the grounds of detention but stated that informing them of the right to make representation remains essential. The rationale behind this is the potential for a detenu to change their mind and accept the grounds if they are adequately informed of their right to challenge the detention order.
Nevertheless, the court clarified that if a detenu receives the grounds of detention in a language they understand, containing a clear statement of their right to make representation, additional verbal notification is unnecessary. The need for verbal communication arises only when the grounds do not indicate the detenu’s right to make representation.
The case in question involved the detention of an individual apprehended in connection with a consignment containing gold and foreign currencies. Despite the detenu’s refusal to accept the grounds of detention, the court noted that he had signed a document in English, indicating his objection to receiving the grounds. The court deemed the detenu’s claim of ignorance of English as an afterthought and denied relief, emphasizing that the detenu was well aware of his right to make representation.
