Summary: The Bombay High Court dealt with several cases questioning the detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court found that these orders were issued without proper reasoning and canceled them.
In a series of legal requests, including the main case Shaikh Zibraeel @ Pinkey Shaikh Rajjak Vs. State of Maharashtra, the people involved challenged their detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The main argument was that the detention orders were issued without proper justification.
The Act allows the State Government to detain individuals to stop them from acting in ways that disturb public order. However, such detention must follow a legally prescribed procedure.
"Taking away personal freedom must follow a legally prescribed procedure."
The court noticed that the detention orders were the same in form and content across all cases, showing a lack of individual assessment.
"The orders are said to be issued to prevent the individuals from acting in any way that disturbs public order."
The court criticized the State Government for approving detention orders without proper reasoning. The approval was often done by a lower-level officer, which the court found inappropriate.
"The approval order must show that the material was considered."
The Advisory Board, which reviews detention orders, was also found to have acted superficially, merely confirming detentions without detailed scrutiny.
"The Advisory Board believes there is enough reason to continue detaining the named person."
The court canceled the detention orders, emphasizing the importance of individual assessment and proper reasoning in such serious matters.
"The detention orders and the confirmation orders in respective cases are canceled and set aside."
Proper Justification Needed: Detention orders must be based on specific, justified reasons, not just a template.
Role of Authorities: The State Government and Advisory Board must think independently and ensure proper procedures are followed.
Fundamental Rights: The court highlighted the importance of protecting personal freedom and ensuring that any taking away of freedom follows strict legal procedures.
The court's decision highlights the need for careful and individualized consideration in preventive detention cases, reinforcing the protection of personal freedoms.
