Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed the detention order passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA), holding that it was illegal and unconstitutional. The Court observed that the detention order suffered from multiple fatal defects, including unexplained delay of nearly a year in execution, reliance on an offence unconnected to the detainee, use of vague in-camera statements, and failure to supply translated documents in the detainee’s known language.
The Court directed the immediate release of the detainee and imposed ₹2,00,000 compensation to be paid by the State Government, with liberty to recover it from the salary of the District Magistrate responsible for the unlawful order.
Facts
The detention order was issued on 18 July 2024 while the detainee was already in judicial custody in connection with a criminal case (C.R. No. 140 of 2024). Despite being aware of his custody, the authorities did not serve the order until 23 May 2025, when he was released on bail—almost eleven months later.
The order referred to two criminal cases, including C.R. No. 127 of 2023, in which the detainee was not involved at all. Authorities later termed this inclusion a “typographical mistake.” The order also relied on vague in-camera statements describing isolated incidents that amounted, at most, to breaches of law and order, not disturbance of public order.
Additionally, crucial documents such as remand orders were supplied only in English, though the detainee was a Marathi-medium student who understood only Marathi. This, he argued, violated his constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).
Issues
- Whether unexplained delay of nearly one year in executing the detention order vitiates its legality.
- Whether reliance on an offence unconnected with the detainee shows non-application of mind.
- Whether serving detention documents only in English violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
- Whether the incidents relied upon amounted to breaches of “law and order” or genuine disturbance of “public order.”
- Whether preventive detention was misused as a colourable exercise of power
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the detention order was illegal due to long and unexplained delay in execution, which broke the nexus between alleged prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. The delay, he argued, was deliberate—authorities kept the order pending until his release on bail to immediately take him back into custody under preventive detention.
He further argued that reliance on C.R. No. 127 of 2023, where he was not an accused or connected, showed complete non-application of mind. Dismissing it as a “typographical error” could not cure the defect since the order expressly relied on that case as part of the foundation for detention.
The petitioner also submitted that supplying documents only in English violated his constitutional right under Article 22(5), as he understood only Marathi. Moreover, the vague in-camera statements described only isolated incidents amounting to law and order issues, not disturbances of public order. Thus, the order amounted to arbitrary abuse of preventive detention powers.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that preventive detention can be ordered even against a person already in custody, provided there is awareness of custody and satisfaction that he may indulge in prejudicial activities upon release. It relied on Section 13 of the MPDA Act, which states that detention is reckoned from the date of actual custody, not the date of order. Hence, serving the order after release on bail was not illegal.
Regarding C.R. No. 127 of 2023, the State submitted that its mention was inadvertent and a typographical error, and the real reliance was only on C.R. No. 140 of 2024 and in-camera statements. It maintained that the detainee’s past conduct showed he was a dangerous person likely to engage in prejudicial activities.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reaffirmed that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure that infringes on personal liberty and must strictly comply with constitutional safeguards.
- Delay in Execution: Referring to Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. (1975) and Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (1991), the Court held that detention starts only upon execution. However, authorities cannot keep the order pending for months without explanation. The lack of justification broke the nexus between alleged activities and necessity of detention.
- Awareness of Custody & Bail Possibility: The Court found that while authorities knew of the detainee’s custody, there was no material showing a real possibility of release when the order was made. The detainee was granted bail only ten months later, failing the test in Kamarunnissa (1991).
- Reliance on Extraneous Material: Inclusion of C.R. No. 127 of 2023, where the detainee had no connection, showed reliance on irrelevant material, invalidating subjective satisfaction, as explained in Khudiram Das (1975) and Ashadevi (1979).
- Law vs. Public Order: Referring to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (1966), the Court held that isolated incidents causing law and order issues do not amount to public order disturbances.
- Language Requirement: Applying Lallubhai Patel (1981) and Powanammal (1999), the Court held that failure to provide Marathi translations of documents violated Article 22(5), depriving the detainee of effective representation.
Precedent Analysis
- Haradhan Saha (1975) – Detention begins from execution, not order date.
- Kamarunnissa (1991) – Conditions for valid detention while in custody; unmet here.
- Bhaurao Gawande (2008) – Preventive detention is precautionary, not punitive.
- T.A. Abdul Rahman (1989) & Rajinder Arora (2006) – Unexplained delay in execution vitiates detention.
- Khudiram Das (1975) & Ashadevi (1979) – Reliance on extraneous/irrelevant material invalidates orders.
- Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (1966) – Distinguished law and order from public order.
- Lallubhai Patel (1981) & Powanammal (1999) – Documents must be supplied in detainee’s known language
Court’s Reasoning
The Court concluded that:
- The unexplained delay of nearly a year in execution snapped the live link between alleged activities and detention.
- Reliance on C.R. No. 127 of 2023, later dismissed as “typographical error,” revealed gross non-application of mind.
- In-camera statements described only law and order issues, not public order disturbances.
- Failure to provide documents in Marathi violated constitutional safeguards.
- Keeping the detention order pending until release from bail amounted to misuse of preventive detention powers.
Conclusion
The Court quashed the detention order of 18 July 2024, along with approval and confirmation orders, and directed the immediate release of the detainee. It imposed ₹2,00,000 compensation to be paid by the State, recoverable from the salary of the District Magistrate who had passed the illegal order.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that preventive detention laws must not be used arbitrarily or as a substitute for regular criminal prosecution. Authorities must exercise such extraordinary powers cautiously and only against genuine threats to public order. It also strengthens the constitutional guarantee of effective representation under Article 22(5), ensuring that documents are supplied in a language understood by the detainee.
FAQs
Q1. Can preventive detention be served after a long delay?
No. Unexplained delay in execution renders the detention illegal, as it breaks the nexus between alleged activities and preventive purpose.
Q2. Is supplying documents in English enough if the detainee knows only Marathi?
No. Article 22(5) requires that detention grounds and documents be communicated in a language understood by the detainee. Failure invalidates the order.
Q3. What is the difference between “law and order” and “public order”?
Law and order issues affect individuals or local disturbances. Public order involves disruption of society’s even tempo and widespread insecurity. Preventive detention applies only to public order disturbances.
