Partially translated vital detention documents violate Article 22(5) by denying the detenu an effective representation.

The petitioner, Sylviya, wife of the detenu Irudhaya Jasfar, challenged the detention order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi, under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (“Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”).

The detenu was classified as a “Goonda” under Section 2(f) of the Act and confined in Palayamkottai Central Prison.

The petitioner contended that certain documents supplied to the detenu were partly in English and partly in Tamil and that, despite a representation seeking complete Tamil translations, the translated documents were not furnished.

1. Whether the supply of vital detention documents that were only partially translated into Tamil violated the detenu’s constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India?

2. Whether the failure to furnish complete vernacular translations rendered the continued preventive detention illegal and required quashing of the detention order?

The Court applied Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which requires that a preventive detenu be communicated the grounds of detention and be afforded the earliest opportunity to make an effective representation against the detention.

It applied Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, under which the detenu had been classified as a “Goonda”.

Relying on Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 2 SCC 413, the Court held that non-supply of a relied-upon document, or failure to provide its translated version in a language understood by the detenu, can deprive the detenu of the constitutional opportunity to make an effective representation and render the continued detention illegal.

The distinction recognised in Powanammal is that non-supply or improper translation of a relied-upon document is ordinarily fatal, whereas prejudice must generally be shown where the document is merely referred to and not relied upon.

Upon examining the detention booklet, the Court found that some vital documents supplied to the detenu were inadequately translated, being partly in English and partly in Tamil.

Since the detenu was not furnished complete translations in the vernacular language understood by him, he was prevented from properly understanding and challenging the material relied upon for his detention.

Applying the principle in Powanammal, the Court held that this deficiency impaired the detenu’s right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation.

The failure was therefore not a mere procedural irregularity but a constitutional violation affecting the legality of the continued detention.

The detention order in H.S.(M) Confdl. No.57/2026 dated 02.05.2026 was quashed, as the improper translation of vital documents deprived the detenu of his constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).

Irudhaya Jasfar was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case.