Summary: The Bombay High Court criticized the State of Maharashtra for issuing detention orders without proper reasoning, highlighting a lack of thoughtful consideration in preventive detention cases.
In this case, several petitions were filed against the State of Maharashtra, challenging the detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The petitioners, including Jainuddin alias Jainu Mohammad Rauf Ansari, argued that these orders violated their right to personal freedom under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The case was heard by Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre. Arguments were presented on September 11, 2025, and the decision was announced on September 30, 2025.
The court found that the orders were issued automatically, without considering the specific details of each case. The State Government had given powers to District Leaders across all areas to detain individuals, citing the same reasons everywhere. This was criticized as an "automatic way to assess the situation."
"Such an order... is a classic example of what can be termed as an automatic way to assess the situation."
The court noted that the State Government failed to explain why preventive detention was needed in any specific area. It was pointed out that the orders did not differentiate between current situations and those likely to happen in the future, which is essential for such decisions.
The Advisory Board's role in reviewing these orders was also highlighted. The court emphasized that the Board must actively ensure that detention orders are justified and not just based on personal opinions.
The court observed that the approval and confirmation of detention orders lacked proper reasoning. The orders were often passed by lower-ranking officers without enough careful consideration, which is not allowed under the law.
The court stressed that the detention orders impacted the basic rights of the petitioners, as they were not informed of the reasons for their detention, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The court canceled the detention orders and directed the release of the petitioners, including Jainuddin alias Jainu Mohammad Rauf Ansari, unless they were needed in any other case. It emphasized the need for the State Government to think carefully and follow proper procedures in future cases.
"The orders of giving powers, detention, appeal, and confirmation of detention, therefore, do not withstand legal scrutiny and are liable to be canceled and set aside."
The court's decision nullified the detention orders and called for the immediate release of the petitioners, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures and respecting individuals' fundamental rights.
