Bombay High Court: The instant petition was filed by the detenu detained to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority exercised the power conferred upon it under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (“1981 Act”), and directed detention for a year at the Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. The grounds for detention were also communicated to the detenu on 28-12-2023.
The detenue accordingly preferred representation for consideration, highlighting the grounds on which the order of detention was assailed on 25-01-2024. One of such grounds amongst others was the delay of decision on his representation, stating that the non-decision of representation had rendered his continued detention invalid; therefore, the detention order should be set aside for having affected his rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution
,
The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre, Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., noted that the decision was finally taken on 26-02-2024,after almost a month andthe Authority very casually explained the reasons for delay and unnecessary time was consumed to prepare para-wise comments.
The Court opined that the explanation offered by the Authority lacked promptitude and expediency, which is expected when the fundamental rights of a citizen were being curtailed; such unexplained delay in deciding on the detenu’s representation had proven fatal to the right bestowed upon him by the Constitution. The Court also highlighted the well-settled law that when the liberty of a person is imperiled, immediate action should be taken by the relevant authorities.
Hence, the Court was satisfied that there was unexplained delay by the Authority in taking decision on the representation and the delay was not convincing enough, thereby proving fatal to the detenu’s right under the Constitution. Thus, the Court held that the detention order was liable to be set aside, and the detenu was entitled to be set free of detention.
[Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2235, decided on 03-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Narayan Gopinath Rokade, Udaysingh Deshmukh, Pratibha Pawar, Abhay Suryawanshi, S. Ugalmugle and Dhananjay Bhosale, Advocates
For the respondents: J.P. Yagnik, APP.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
