Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The National Security Act, 1980
Article 22(5) in The Constitution Of India 1949
Citedby 16 docs - [View All]
Smt. Takhellambam Ongbi Mombi ... vs The State Of Manipur And Ors. on 7 May, 1991
Nilambar Patra vs State on 3 September, 1984
G.K. Mohanty vs Pratap Kishore Das on 3 February, 1986
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Thakur Dass And Etc. Etc. on 22 June, 1983
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Punnu Ram on 1 January, 1985

User Queries
Supreme Court of India
Bhola Bhuiya vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 October, 1974
Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 SC 2122, 1974 CriLJ 1462, (1975) 3 SCC 253
Author: Y Chandrachud
Bench: R Sarkaria, Y Chandrachud

JUDGMENT

Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. The petitioner was detained by an order dated January 14, 1972 passed by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971. The order purports to have been passed in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends in this habes corpus petition that the petitioner is an illiterate person and since the grounds of detention were not explained to him in his own language he was denied an opportunity, to make an effective representation against the order of detention. On the last occasion when this matter had come up for hearing the Court had asked the respondent, the State of West Bengal, to make an affidavit on the question whether the grounds furnished to the petitioner were explained to him in a language which he could understand. Accordingly, as affidavit has been filed by Mr. S. K. Saha, the Police Inspector, who served the detention order and the grounds on the petitioner. That affidavit shows that the grounds of detention were explained to the petitioner in Hindi which is the language that the petitioner understands. There is therefore no substance in the contention that the order of detention is vitiated on account of noncompliance with the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

3. Accordingly, we confirm the order and discharge the Rule.