Manipur High Court
Shri Nongthombam Premjit Singh vs The Special Secretary (Home) on 25 January, 2023
DB Item No. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
W.P. (Crl.) No. 46 of 2022
Shri Nongthombam Premjit Singh, aged about 45 years,
S/o (L) N. Biren Singh of Terakhongsangbi Wahengbam Leikai,
at present lodged in Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
1. The Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur,
Secretariat, Imphal West, Imphal - 795001.
2. The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Secretary,
Govt. of Manipur, Secretariat, Imphal West, Imphal - 795001.
3. The Superintendent of Jail, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa,
Government of Manipur.
...Respondents
B EF O R E
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the petitioner : Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. S. Nepolean, GA
Date of order : 25-01-2023
ORDER
Sanjay Kumar (C.J.),
[1] Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 02-09-2022 of
the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, whereby the
petitioner was subjected to preventive detention in exercise of power under
Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. He seeks a consequential writ of
habeas corpus to set him at liberty forthwith.
[2] Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the petitioner;
and Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
respondents.
[3] The primary ground of attack urged by Mr. S. Rajeetchandra,
learned counsel, is that the authorities failed to comply with the procedural
requirement of informing the petitioner of the grounds of his detention
despite being aware that he was completely illiterate. He would further state
that one of the documents relied upon by the authorities was not even
furnished to the petitioner.
[4] Perusal of the documents furnished to the petitioner along with the
Grounds of Detention dated 06-09-2022 reflects that the 'History Sheet' was
one of those documents. Para 12 of the said History Sheet clearly recorded
that the petitioner was completely illiterate and could not read or write. The
Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, stated in his affidavit-in-
opposition that the jail authority had submitted parawise comments, vide
letter dated 21-12-2022, to the effect that the Office of the Superintendent,
Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa, had translated the contents of the Grounds of
Detention into Manipuri for the benefit of the petitioner.
He further stated that apart from the statement of the petitioner
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the statement of the co-accused,
namely, Satminlen Kipgen, clearly revealed the petitioner's involvement in
the case. As rightly pointed out by Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel, a
copy of the said statement of the co-accused was not even furnished to the
petitioner.
[5] The file of the detaining authority produced by Mr. S. Nepolean,
learned Government Advocate, reflects that the left thumb impression of the
petitioner was obtained on 06-09-2022 at 9.30 p.m. on the Grounds of
Detention dated 06-09-2022, in proof of his receiving the same. However,
no endorsement was made thereon to the effect that the contents of the said
Grounds of Detention were translated into Manipuri and explained to him.
Further, the letter dated 20-12-2022 of the Superintendent of Police,
Bishnupur, furnishing the parawise comments does not contain a statement
to the effect that the Grounds of Detention were translated and explained to
the petitioner. However, the parawise comments furnished to the learned
Government Advocate by Dr. Mayengbam Veto Singh, Deputy Secretary
(Home), Government of Manipur, stated so and recorded that the Grounds
of Detention had been served through the Superintendent, Manipur Central
Jail, Sajiwa, on the same day after translating the contents of the Grounds
of Detention in the language known to him - Manipuri (as given in the
parawise comments submitted by the jail authority). However, no separate
parawise comments furnished by the jail authority aare vailable in the file. It
is not known as to how Dr. Mayengbam Veto Singh included this statement
in his parawise comments given to the learned Government Advocate.
[6] Reference may now be made to the Constitution Bench judgment
in Harikisan vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 1962 SC 911],
wherein it was observed that mere communication of the grounds of
detention in English would not necessarily be sufficient compliance with the
requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. This observation was made
in the context of a detenu who is not conversion with English language and
the Supreme Court held that in order to satisfy the Constitutional
requirement in his case, the detenu must be given the grounds in a language
in which he could understand them, if he could read. The Supreme Court
further observed that, where the grounds are several, an oral translation or
explanation given by the police officer to the detenu would not amount to
communicating the grounds. Communication, per the Bench, would mean
bringing home to the detenu effective knowledge of the facts and
circumstances on which the order of detention was based.
[7] In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner did
not even make a representation against his detention.
Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel, would state that he was not aware
of the Constitutional right afforded to him to do so, as he was not allowed to
meet anyone until confirmation of his detention order. In effect, the petitioner
was never apprised of either his right to make a representation or the
contents of the grounds of detention so as to satisfy the legal requirement.
In such circumstances, the order of detention cannot be sustained.
[8] The order of detention dated 02.09.2022 issued by the Special
Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, is accordingly set aside. All
consequential proceedings based thereon shall also stand set aside. The
petitioner, Nongthombam Premjit Singh, presently incarcerated in Manipur
Central Jail, Sajiwa, shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his continued
incarceration is validly required in connection with any other case.
WP (Cril.) No. 46 of 2022 is accordingly allowed.
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Victoria
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Date: 2023.01.25
VICTORIA 17:40:06 +05'30'
