In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed the detention order, citing a violation of detenue’s constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The division bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Shriram Modak held that the failure to provide translated copies of in-camera witness statements in Urdu—a language the detenue was conversant with—had deprived him of his right to make an effective representation against his detention.
The case arose from a petition filed by Mohammad Yusuf, father of the detenue, challenging the detention order issued on July 30, 2024, under 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 Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention that his son had not been provided with Urdu translations of key documents, thereby violating his fundamental rights.
"The Petitioner (Shahabaz’s father) has stated in the petition that the detenue is conversant only with Urdu language. This fact is also accepted by the detaining authority; as Urdu translation of the detention order itself and the grounds of the detention translated into Urdu were served on the detenue. In this background, it was equally important for the detaining authority to have served the detenue with the Urdu translation of the Marathi in-camera statements of the witnesses. That was not done. Therefore, the detenue is deprived of making the earliest effective representation challenging the order of the detention, thereby affecting his valuable right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India," observed the Court in its order dated March 22, 2025.
Apart from the language issue, the Court also scrutinized the timeline of the detention proceedings and found an unexplained delay in passing the detention order. The statements of two in-camera witnesses were recorded in March 2024 and forwarded to the sponsoring authority in April 2024. However, despite receiving the proposal by April 25, 2024, the detaining authority did not issue the detention order until July 30, 2024.
"From that point onwards, till passing of the detention order on July 30, 2024, the affidavit is completely silent. Nothing was explained as to what transpired between April 25, 2024, up to July 29, 2024. Thus, there is force in the submission of the Petitioner that the authorities had not shown urgency in passing the detention order, if the detenue’s prejudicial activities were so dangerous for the society at large that it affected the public order. In this regard, we find that in this particular case, the Authorities have failed to explain as to why the detention order was not passed expeditiously showing sufficient urgency," the Court noted.
The Bench further emphasized that while not every delay vitiates a detention order, unexplained and unreasonable delay certainly impacts its sustainability.
Finding the detention order legally unsustainable on both grounds, the High Court quashed the order and directed the immediate release of Shahabaz Ahmed Mohammad Yusuf unless he was required in any other case.
"The order of Detention bearing No. DESK-1/POL-1/MPDA/02/2024, dated 30.07.2024 is quashed and set aside. The detenue shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case," the Court ruled.
Picture Source :
