Bombay High Court quashes detention order due to failure of Urdu translation

Bombay High Court quashes detention order due to lack of translated witness statements in Urdu, violating detenue's rights.

The Bombay High Court has quashed a detention order against a person named Shahabaz Ahmed Mohammad Yusuf from Nashik, after observing that he was not given translated witness statements in Urdu, the only language he is conversant in.

The petition filed by the father of the detenue, Shahabaz Ahmed Mohammad Yusuf, challenged the July 30, 2024, detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Nashik under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981.

A Division Bench of judges, Justice Sarang Kotwal and S.M. Modak, in a March 21 judgment, observed, “It was equally important for the detaining authority to have served the detenue with the Urdu translation of the Marathi in-camera statements. That was not done. Therefore, the detenue is deprived of making the earliest effective representation challenging the order of the detention, thereby affecting his valuable right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.” The judgment copy was made available on Friday (March 28, 2025).

Mr. Yusuf was detained for his alleged involvement in nine registered offences at Pawarwadi Police Station, Ramjanpura City Police Station, Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon City Police Station and Malegaon Camp Police Station between the years 2018 to 2020. However, the detention order was based on a criminal offence from March 3, 2024, registered at Ayesha Nagar Police Station under Sections 395, 143, 147, 323, 324, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and two in-camera statements of the witnesses. The incident took place at around 5 p.m. in which Mr. Yusuf and his accomplices allegedly assaulted the witnesses and snatched their mobile phone and ₹20,000.

Additional Public Prosecutor S.V. Gavand representing the State said that the detention order also referred to two in-camera statements made by two witnesses who had witnessed separate incidents in January at around 10.30 p.m. and February 2024 at around 9.30 p.m., in which Mr. Yusuf allegedly committed crimes, including assault and theft. 

Advocate Aisha Z. Ansari, representing the petitioner, placed two arguments. The first ground was that the detention order was not passed promptly. No urgency was shown by the Detaining authority or the Sponsoring authority in initiating this action. That would indicate that detaining him after the lapse of an unreasonable period from the last activity was not needed at all. The second ground raised by her was that the detenue was not furnished with in-camera statements in the Urdu language with which he was conversant.

Therefore, the detenue is deprived of making the earliest effective representation challenging the order of the detention, thereby affecting his valuable right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, on all these counts, the detention order is liable to be set aside, advocate Ansari argued.