Bombay High Court Strikes Down Preventive Detention Order, Criticizes Police Approach
The Bombay High Court has taken a firm stand against what it calls a casual approach by authorities in preventive detention matters. In a significant ruling, the court set aside a detention order issued by the Thane police commissioner. The court expressed strong disapproval of how officials handle such serious cases.
Court Quashes February 2025 Detention Order
The High Court quashed a detention order from February 2025 targeting a 27-year-old man from Ulhasnagar. This individual was held at Yerawada prison in Pune under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, commonly known as the MPDA Act. His lawyer, Satyavrat Joshi, argued successfully against the order.
Joshi pointed out several flaws in the police action. He stated the order lacked proper reasoning and suffered from unexplained delays. The incidents cited by police occurred in November and December 2024, yet the detention order came much later without clear justification.
Police Invoke MPDA Act, Court Finds Reasoning Vague
Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Patil defended the police action. He submitted that authorities rightly invoked the MPDA Act of 1981. This law targets slumlords, bootleggers, drug offenders, and other dangerous persons. However, the court found the police explanation insufficient.
Joshi countered that his client's alleged conduct involved family infighting among relatives. He argued this did not threaten public order or community safety. The High Court agreed with this assessment after examining the case details.
Unexplained Delay of 34 Days Raises Court's Concern
The court identified a critical gap in the police timeline. Authorities recorded the last witness statement on January 3, 2025. Yet they waited 34 days before issuing the detention order. The High Court found no satisfactory explanation for this delay.
In its ruling, the court described the police affidavit as general, vague, and routine. The document merely traced the proposal's movement through bureaucratic channels. It failed to provide substantive justification for the detention decision.
Court Expresses Displeasure with Detaining Authority
The Bombay High Court did not mince words in its criticism. It stated authorities repeatedly handle preventive detention matters in a casual and unconcerned manner. The court expressed concern about the nature and contents of affidavits filed by the Detaining Authority.
Considering the tone and attempted explanations, the court found the approach routine rather than rigorous. This casual handling of detention powers troubled the judiciary.
Individual Conduct Versus Public Order Threat
The court emphasized a crucial distinction in its ruling. Preventive detention requires actions that disrupt public order, meaning the tempo of life in society. The alleged family disputes in this case remained individualistic in nature.
These personal conflicts did not rise to the level of threatening community stability. The unexplained delay in passing the detention order further weakened the police case. Both factors contributed to the court's decision to quash the detention.
This ruling reinforces judicial oversight over preventive detention powers. It reminds authorities that such serious measures require proper justification and timely action.
