Summary: The Bombay High Court has overturned several detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court found that these orders were issued without proper consideration of the specific situations.
The case was heard by Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre. They looked into complaints against detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The main issue was whether these orders violated the basic right to personal freedom guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court noticed that the orders for preventive detention were issued without much thought. The State Government had given powers to District Magistrates across all districts in Maharashtra without explaining the specific situations in each area. This one-size-fits-all approach led the court to decide that the orders didn't have the necessary legal reasons.
"Such an order, in our view, is a classic example of what can be termed as a mechanical way to assess the situation."
The Advisory Board is supposed to review detention orders to make sure they aren't issued carelessly. However, the court noted that the Board's opinion didn't show an independent review, which is needed to make sure the detention orders are legal.
The court stressed that detention orders must be based on specific situations in each area. The State Government must clearly describe these situations to justify the detention.
The court found several mistakes in how the orders were handled, including not thinking carefully when approving and confirming detention orders. The orders were often passed by Section Officers without proper reasoning.
"The orders of conferment of powers, detention, approval, and confirmation of detention, therefore, do not withstand legal scrutiny."
The court overturned the detention orders and ordered the release of Sanjay Wasudev Thutarkar unless he was needed in other cases. This decision shows the importance of following legal procedures and making sure that basic rights are not taken away without good reason.
"The orders of detention as also the orders of confirmation in respective petitions stand quashed and set aside."
This case serves as a reminder of the court's role in protecting personal freedom and ensuring that laws about preventive detention are used wisely.
