Summary: The Bombay High Court canceled several detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The court found the orders were issued without proper reasoning, violating personal freedom rights.
The case involved multiple requests challenging detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. These orders were meant to stop people from disturbing public order. However, Sheikh Imran @ Kangaroo Sheikh Sharif, the person who brought the case, argued that these orders were issued without proper reasoning.
The case was heard by Justices Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre. Their decision, announced on September 30, 2025, pointed out significant mistakes in the process.
The court noticed that the detention orders, approval, and confirmation were made in a routine way. The same format and content were used across different cases without considering individual situations.
"The orders are passed routinely... Such an order is a classic example of what can be called a routine way to assess the situation."
The court looked at the rules of the Act, especially Section 3, which allows the State Government to issue detention orders. The judges stressed that these powers should be used carefully and not applied broadly across areas.
The court found that the State Government did not provide enough reasons for the detention orders. The approval and confirmation were often made by low-ranking officials without proper authority.
"The approval order was passed without proper consideration and cannot be defended."
The Advisory Board, responsible for reviewing detention orders, was criticized for not ensuring that these orders were justified by law rather than being based on personal opinion.
The court ruled that the detention orders were not valid and canceled them. Sheikh Imran @ Kangaroo Sheikh Sharif was to be released unless needed in other cases.
"The orders of detention as also the orders of confirmation... do not withstand legal scrutiny and are liable to be quashed."
This judgment highlights the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring that any restriction on personal freedom is justified and lawful.
