- (1.) This is an application by the wife of the detenu praying that the detenu be released as the order of detention passed against him is illegal. In support of the rule, Mr Ramjethmalani, learned counsel for the detenu submitted three points before me. In the first place it was argued that although the detenu had taken a specific plea in para 17 of the petition and Ground XIII that being an Arab, he did not know English yet the grounds served on the detenu were not explained to him at all in a language which he could understand. In this connection, the allegations in paragraph 17 may be extracted as follows: That the detenu did not understand English nor he knows English. The grounds of detention were not explained to him nor the detention order was explained to the detenu in the language known by the detenu. The detenu can only sign paper in Arabic. He understands only arabic.
(2.) It is clear from the averment of the detenu that he knew only Arabic and no other language. A similar averment was made in Ground XIII of the petition. This averment was sought to be controverted by the respondents in their reply in paragraph 17 where the Under-Secretary, mr Ramanathan stated as follows: Para 17 is denied. It is stated that it is not correct that the detenu understands only Arabic. The detenu knows Hindi. When the case of the detenu came up before the Advisory Board on 29/02/1980, he made his submissions in Hindi and he was interrogated by the members and the Chairman of the Advisory Board in Hindi and he gave replies in Hindi, even though arrangements were made to keep an interpreter knowing Arabic.
(3.) The reply in para 17 appears to be extremely vague and totally irrelevant. When the detenu said that be did not know any language except Arabic, It was futile to contend that the grounds were explained to him in Hindi. The detenu had never pleaded that he knew English or Hindi. The basis for the averment made in the counter-affidavit was that the detenu had made his submissions in Hindi before the Advisory Board. This assertion is wholly inadmissible in evidence in absence of any evidence of any person who was actually present before the Advisory Board and saw the detenu actually making his submissions in Hindi. ' No such affidavit or record has been produced before me.;