The Bombay High Court recently canceled detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court found the State Government's approach to be automatic and lacking proper reasons, affecting the basic rights of individuals.
The case involves multiple legal requests challenging detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The people who filed these requests, including Amol Ganesh Gedam, argued that their personal freedom was unfairly restricted without proper legal reasons.
The case was handled by Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre. They examined the legality of the detention orders and the procedures followed.
The court found that the State Government issued the same detention orders across 34 districts, assuming the same conditions everywhere. This was seen as an "automatic" approach without considering specific local situations.
"Such granting of powers in itself is a reason to hold that the order of granting is done automatically."
The orders lacked detailed reasons, merely repeating legal language without showing specific situations that needed detention.
The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act allows detention to stop activities harmful to public order. However, the court emphasized that such powers require careful use and specific reasons.
The court noted mistakes at every stage, from the initial detention orders to their approval. The approval process was criticized for being handled at a lower administrative level, lacking proper oversight.
"The order of approval must show consideration to such material."
The Advisory Board's role is to independently review detention orders. However, the court found their review lacking depth and failing to challenge the automatic nature of the orders.
The judgment highlighted the importance of personal freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. Detention orders must not be routine administrative acts but require detailed reasons.
"The court highlighted the importance of giving reasons for continuing detention for a certain period."
The court canceled the detention and approval orders, directing the release of Amol Ganesh Gedam and other petitioners unless needed for other cases.
"The orders of detention as also the orders of approval in respective petitions stand canceled and set aside."
