In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court overturned several detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The Court found that the orders were made without properly considering individual situations.
The petitions were against detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. These orders aimed to stop activities harmful to public order. However, Abhay Urf Bittam Dilip Pathode argued these orders were made without good reasons.
The Court, led by Justices Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre, pointed out that the detention, approval, and confirmation orders were made automatically. The government had issued the same orders across different districts, without looking at the specific situations in each area.
"The order of conferment is passed mechanically," the judgment stated, showing a lack of thought.
The Court looked at the rules of the Act, emphasizing that detention orders should be based on specific situations in a particular area. The judgment criticized the broad approach taken by the State Government, which didn’t specify unique conditions needing such serious actions.
The Advisory Board, which reviews detention orders, was found to have only given a quick look. The Court expected a more detailed check to make sure the orders were justified.
The judgment highlighted the importance of personal freedom as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stressed that any limit on freedom must be legally justified and not random.
"Detention being a restriction on the invaluable right to personal liberty requires a rationale that aligns with principles of equality and non-arbitrariness."
The Court overturned the detention orders and ordered the immediate release of Abhay Urf Bittam Dilip Pathode, unless needed for other cases. This decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in protecting personal freedoms against random state actions.
This ruling highlights the need for the government to be careful and thorough when limiting personal freedoms, ensuring that all legal steps are followed carefully.
