MANSI DIKSHIT BHAGAT Vs THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WARDHA AND OTHER
Summary: The Bombay High Court recently canceled several detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court found the State Government's actions to be routine and lacking proper reasons, thus violating basic rights.
The case involved multiple requests challenging detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. Mansi Dikshit Bhagat, among others, argued that their right to personal freedom was unfairly restricted.
Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre were in charge of the case, delivering their decision on September 30, 2025. They examined the procedures followed by the State Government and found them lacking.
"The orders of detention as also the orders of confirmation in respective petitions stand quashed and set aside."
The court noted that the State Government issued detention orders in a routine way without proper reasons. The orders were the same across cases, lacking specific reasons for detention.
The Act allows the State Government to detain individuals to prevent activities harmful to public order. However, such detention requires strong legal reasons and following the correct procedures.
The court criticized the State Government for not properly considering when giving powers to District Magistrates and Police Commissioners. The orders were passed uniformly across districts, indicating a lack of individual assessment.
The Advisory Board's role is crucial in reviewing detention orders. However, the court found that the Board's opinions were often shallow, merely repeating the detention orders without thorough examination.
The judgment highlighted several procedural mistakes, including: - Lack of specific reasons in approval orders. - Confirmation orders passed without considering current situations. - Failure to explain the reasons for detention to the detainees.
The court's decision emphasizes the importance of protecting personal freedom and ensuring that detention orders are not issued randomly. This judgment serves as a reminder of the need for fair process and careful consideration in matters affecting basic rights. The decision to cancel the detention orders reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in government actions.
