Summary: The Bombay High Court canceled several detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, saying that the law was applied without careful thought. The court stressed the need for clear and justified reasons for detention, pointing out mistakes in how things were done.
The petitions challenged the detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. These orders were meant to stop people from causing trouble in public. However, Farooq Abdula Sheikh argued that the orders were given without proper reasons.
The court looked at the rules of the Act, focusing on Sections 3 and 12, which allow for detention if a person is seen as a threat to public order. Farooq Abdula Sheikh argued that the orders didn't have specific reasons and were the same in all cases, showing no individual assessment.
The court, led by Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre, found that the orders were given without considering the unique details of each case. The orders were called mechanical because they didn't mention the specific conditions that justified detention.
"Such an order is a classic example of what can be termed as a mechanical way to assess the situation."
The court also looked at the role of the Advisory Board, which is supposed to independently review detention orders. The Board's opinions were found to be generic, lacking detailed reasoning, and thus not doing their job to prevent unfair detention.
The court emphasized that any limit on personal freedom must be backed by strong legal reasons and should show careful consideration of the situation. The orders should not be just a formality but should show clear thought.
The court pointed out several mistakes in how things were done: - Approval orders lacked reasoning and were often issued by officers who were not high enough in rank. - Confirmation orders were passed without checking the current situation, extending detention for twelve months without reason.
The court canceled the detention orders, stating that they did not hold up under legal examination. Farooq Abdula Sheikh was ordered to be released unless needed for other cases.
"The orders of conferment of powers, detention, appeal, and confirmation of detention do not withstand legal scrutiny and are liable to be quashed and set aside."
This ruling highlights the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that preventive detention is not used carelessly. It shows the judiciary's role in protecting personal freedom against the careless use of the law.
