Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging a preventive detention order issued under the Maharashtra statute governing dangerous persons and public order. The petitioner had argued that the detention was vitiated because the in-camera witness statements, relied upon in forming subjective satisfaction, were not personally verified by the detaining authority. The Court held that such personal verification is not required by law, and that verification conducted by a senior police officer—specifically the Assistant Commissioner of Police—constitutes adequate procedural compliance. The Court found that all material relied upon had been supplied to the detenu, and that the detaining authority’s satisfaction was based on relevant and verified material.
Facts
The petitioner was detained under the preventive detention statute following a proposal submitted by the sponsoring authority. The detention order relied upon two in-camera witness statements describing recent criminal activities posing a threat to public order. These statements were verified personally by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who interacted with the witnesses, visited the locality, and confirmed the truthfulness of the narrated incidents. The detaining authority considered the proposal, including the verification report, and issued the detention order. The petitioner challenged the order before the High Court on the ground that the detaining authority did not personally verify the in-camera statements, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction.
Issues
The Court framed the central issues as:
- Whether the detaining authority is legally required to personally verify the in-camera statements relied upon in the detention proposal.
- Whether verification by the Assistant Commissioner of Police satisfies the statutory and constitutional safeguards applicable to preventive detention.
- Whether failure to mention certain details in the detention order undermines the subjective satisfaction required for a valid detention under the statute.
- Whether the petitioner was supplied all material relied upon, enabling effective representation under constitutional guarantees.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that in-camera statements must be personally verified by the detaining authority to satisfy the requirement of forming subjective satisfaction under preventive detention law. He asserted that reliance on verification conducted only by the Assistant Commissioner of Police amounted to mechanical approval of the proposal. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment emphasising strict adherence to procedural requirements in preventive detention and argued that any deviation—even slight—must lead to quashing. He contended that the detaining authority should have engaged directly with the verifying officer or the witnesses, and that failure to do so rendered the subjective satisfaction defective.
Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the in-camera statements were duly verified by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, whose detailed report was placed before the detaining authority and supplied to the petitioner. The State submitted that the law does not require the detaining authority to personally verify the witnesses or conduct independent inquiries. It relied on precedent establishing that courts cannot apply an objective standard to examine subjective satisfaction. The respondents emphasized that the verification process was thorough: the officer identified the witnesses, confirmed voluntariness, checked locality details, and certified genuineness. Thus, the detaining authority had ample material to form satisfaction.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated that preventive detention laws require strict compliance with procedural safeguards, but the formation of subjective satisfaction belongs exclusively to the detaining authority. What matters is that the authority considers all relevant material placed before it. The Court held that the statute does not mandate personal verification by the detaining authority. Instead, verification by a responsible senior police officer—such as the Assistant Commissioner of Police—is sufficient. The purpose of verification is to ensure that the witnesses are genuine, the statements voluntary, and the incidents true. When these requirements are met, the detaining authority may rely upon the material without conducting independent verification.
Precedent analysis
Rameshwar Shaw
The Court relied on this Supreme Court precedent, which held that subjective satisfaction cannot be tested using an objective standard. The court’s role is limited to ensuring that relevant material existed and was considered.
Nagnarayan Saryu Singh
The Court referred extensively to this Bombay High Court decision, which explained that verification by an Assistant Commissioner of Police ensures the genuineness of in-camera statements. It held that modern practice is to use senior officers for verification to prevent misuse, eliminating the need for personal verification by the detaining authority.
Ameena Begum (distinguished)
Although cited by the petitioner, the Court held that the judgment emphasises strict compliance with legal requirements but does not mandate personal verification by the detaining authority.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that verification of in-camera statements by a senior officer serves as a crucial safeguard and ensures authenticity. It noted that the Assistant Commissioner of Police personally interviewed the witnesses, visited the locality, confirmed details with residents and shopkeepers, and certified voluntariness and truthfulness. All this material was placed before the detaining authority, which reviewed and relied upon it. The Court emphasised that the petitioner received copies of all relevant documents, except identifying particulars withheld in public interest as permitted by law. Consequently, the Court concluded that subjective satisfaction was neither mechanical nor vitiated. The procedural requirements were met in full.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court concluded that preventive detention was justified and that the petitioner’s challenge lacked merit. It upheld the detention order, ruling that personal verification by the detaining authority is not a statutory requirement. Verification by an Assistant Commissioner of Police, supported by detailed investigation and corroboration, constitutes adequate compliance. Since the petitioner had been supplied all material relied upon, and the detaining authority had considered the entire record before issuing the order, the Court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the practice of relying on senior police officers to verify in-camera statements in preventive detention matters. It prevents unnecessary burdens on detaining authorities while ensuring safeguards against misuse. The ruling brings clarity by confirming that personal verification by the detaining authority is not required unless mandated by statute. It strengthens the evidentiary foundation of detention orders, offers administrative certainty, and makes judicial challenges more difficult where verification is duly conducted by senior officers. It also underscores that courts cannot substitute their own assessment for the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.
Summary of referred cases
Rameshwar Shaw — Subjective satisfaction is unreviewable
Held that courts cannot apply an objective standard to examine subjective satisfaction of detaining authorities.
Nagnarayan Saryu Singh — Verification by ACP is sufficient safeguard
Explained that verification by officers above the rank of ACP ensures genuineness of in-camera statements and replaces the need for personal verification.
Ameena Begum — Strict compliance principle
Reiterated that preventive detention demands strict procedural compliance, though not extending to unnecessary formalities not required by law.
FAQs
1. Is personal verification of in-camera statements by the detaining authority mandatory?
No. Verification by a senior police officer, such as the Assistant Commissioner of Police, is sufficient.
2. Can courts re-examine whether subjective satisfaction was reasonable?
Not on merits. Courts only ensure that relevant material was considered and procedural safeguards followed.
3. Must all documents relied upon be supplied to the detenu?
Yes. Copies of all relied-upon materials must be furnished, except identifying details withheld for safety under statutory provisions.