Recently, the Bombay High Court held that acts such as wielding a deadly weapon like a koyta in a public place, extorting money, or threatening individuals, though unlawful, do not, by themselves, constitute acts prejudicial to public order warranting preventive detention. The Court held that the conduct attributed to the detenue was “largely individualistic in nature and not against the public order or the public or the society”, and therefore fell outside the scope of preventive detention laws.
The case arose from a preventive detention order issued against the detenue under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City.
The detention was founded on one criminal case and two in-camera witness statements. The criminal case pertained to an incident involving alleged threats and use of a deadly weapon, while the in-camera witnesses claimed that the detenue wielded a koyta in the middle of the road, extorted money, and threatened passersby. The petitioner, the detenue’s mother, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the detention order and the detenue’s release from custody.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the acts relied upon by the detaining authority did not meet the legal threshold of disturbing public order. It was argued that, at best, the allegations disclosed issues relating to law and order, which could be addressed under ordinary criminal law. The petitioner also assailed the detention on the ground of unexplained delay, pointing out the gap between the recording of the last in-camera statement and the issuance of the detention order.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent, on the other hand, defended the detention on the basis of the in-camera statements and the criminal case, which, according to the State, demonstrated conduct prejudicial to public order. The State sought to justify the time taken in issuing the detention order by referring to the procedural steps involved in processing the proposal.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale held that the alleged acts, even if accepted at face value, did not satisfy the test of public order. It observed that “The acts complained of are largely individualistic in nature and not against the public order or the public or the society. The acts complained appeared to be vexed against a particular individual.”
The Bench drew a clear distinction between law and order and public order, noting that “every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder” and that preventive detention can be invoked only where the conduct affects the “even tempo of life of the community.” The Court further observed that the conduct in question did not create fear, panic, or insecurity among the public at large, and therefore could not be categorised as prejudicial to public order.
The Court found that there was an unexplained gap of 67 days between the recording of the last in-camera statement and the issuance of the detention order. It held that “general and usual vague explanations given in a routine manner cannot be accepted as an explanation to justify inaction or delay,” and that such unexplained delay vitiates a preventive detention order.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court quashed and set aside the preventive detention order, holding that the acts attributed to the detenue were not prejudicial to public order and that the unexplained delay in issuing the order rendered it unsustainable.
Case Title: Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh v. Commissioner of Police, Pune & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 3471 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice A.S. Gadkari, Hon’ble Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Misbaah Solkar, Faiza Gawandi, Nawaz Dordi, Amin Solkar
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Shreekant V. Gavand
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
