SAU. ASHABAI WAMAN RATHOD Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS
Summary: The Bombay High Court criticized Maharashtra's use of preventive detention, highlighting careless and unfair processes that violate personal freedom.
The case involves several legal challenges against detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The challenges argued that these orders were made without proper reasons.
Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre led the case. They noted that the state government issued orders in a "careless way," affecting basic rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
"Taking away personal freedom must follow a legally prescribed process," the judges emphasized.
The court found that the orders were the same across multiple districts, suggesting a lack of individual consideration. The judges highlighted that the orders were based on unclear threats to public order without specific proof.
The court examined the rules of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, stating that the state government failed to explain the need for such extreme measures.
"The order of approval is passed carelessly," the court noted, criticizing the broad use across Maharashtra.
The court also looked into the Advisory Board's role, which failed to independently review the detention orders. The board just approved the government's decisions without enough examination.
The judges stressed the importance of personal freedom and the need for the state to think carefully before limiting it. They pointed out that such detention orders should not be routine but based on solid evidence.
The court canceled the detention orders, stating they were made without proper thought and violated the principles of fairness.
"The detention orders do not stand up to legal examination and should be canceled and removed."
The court ordered the immediate release of Ashabai Waman Rathod and others unless needed in other cases, reinforcing the need for a balanced approach between state security and individual rights.
