A recent decision by the Bombay High Court has overturned several detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court found that these orders were issued without proper reasoning and violated the basic rights of the people involved.
The case involved several complaints challenging detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The people involved, including Sangram Vijay Sawle, argued that their right to personal freedom, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, was being violated.
The case was heard by Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre. Arguments finished on September 11, 2025, and the decision was announced on September 30, 2025.
The court noted that the detention orders were issued routinely, without specific reasons, and were the same across various cases, showing a lack of individual consideration.
"The orders are passed in routine and mechanical manner," the court observed.
The State Government had given powers to District Magistrates and Police Commissioners across all districts without explaining specific situations, leading to possible misuse.
"Such conferment of powers in itself is a reason to hold that the order of conferment is passed mechanically."
The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act allows the State to detain people to prevent activities harmful to public order. However, the court emphasized that detention should be based on specific, justified reasons.
The Advisory Board's role is important in reviewing detention orders. The court found that the board's opinions were not strong enough to justify the detentions.
The court pointed out that there was no strong evidence showing that the actions of the people involved disturbed public order. The activities mentioned were minor and did not affect the community as a whole.
The decision stressed the need for individual consideration in each case, rather than applying detention orders broadly.
"The acts attributed to the petitioners do not constitute conduct capable of disturbing public order."
The court overturned the detention orders and directed the release of the people involved, including Sangram Vijay Sawle, unless they were needed in other cases. The decision highlights the importance of following legal procedures and respecting individual rights.
"The orders of detention as also the orders of confirmation in respective petitions stand quashed and set aside."
