Quick Summary: The High Court of Bombay ruled against the State of Maharashtra's detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The court found the orders were issued mechanically, without proper justification, affecting personal freedom.
This case involves several requests to the court to challenge the detention orders issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The requests claimed the orders violated personal freedom guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The main argument was that these orders were issued in a mechanical way without proper legal reasons.
Judges Anil L. Pansare and Siddheshwar S. Thombre noticed that the State Government's orders didn't consider individual situations. The same orders were issued across different districts without thinking about specific local conditions.
"The order, if accepted, would mean that during the period from 1/7/2024 till 31/12/2024, the circumstances that are prevailing or are likely to prevail in the entire State of Maharashtra are such, where persons (not known to anybody) are likely to act in a manner deterrent to maintenance of public order..."
The court looked at the rules under Section 3 of the Act, which allows detention to stop activities harmful to public order. However, the orders were found to be the same and lacking specific reasons, which the judges considered a "classic example" of mechanical application.
The way these detention orders were approved was criticized for being shallow. The court noted that the State Government's approval didn't show any independent thought.
"The order of approval must reflect consideration to such material... Here, the order of approval, as also, the order of conferment, is passed by Section Officer."
The court also pointed out the role of the Advisory Board, which is supposed to make sure that detention orders are not passed routinely. However, the Board's findings were also found to be shallow.
The court canceled the detention orders and directed the release of Sharukh Hameed Sheikh, unless he was needed in other cases. The ruling emphasized the need for proper legal procedures and individualized assessments in issuing detention orders.
"The orders of conferment of powers, detention, appeal and confirmation of detention, therefore, do not withstand legal scrutiny and are liable to be quashed and set aside."
This judgment highlights the importance of following legal standards and protecting personal freedom against random state actions.
