Court Emphasizes Distinction Between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order' in Preventive Detention Cases
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur quashed the preventive detention order against Aditya Shailendra Mane, issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention, dated October 13, 2025, was initially sanctioned by the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, based on a single incident involving a private assault. The court ruled that such an incident cannot be construed as an act against public order, which is a prerequisite for detention under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act.
The case revolved around the actions of Mane, who, along with others, was involved in an assault related to a personal dispute over a love relationship. The High Court, through Justices R.G. Avachat and Ajit B. Kadethankar, highlighted the essential difference between 'law and order' and 'public order,' asserting that individualistic offenses cannot justify preventive detention meant to address broader public safety concerns.
In the judgment, the court scrutinized the use of in-camera statements recorded while Mane was still in custody, emphasizing that such statements must be credible and directly linked to acts against public order. The court found the statements in this case lacked trustworthiness and were insufficient to substantiate the detention.
The court reiterated the constitutional safeguards under Articles 21, 226, and 227 of the Indian Constitution, underscoring that preventive detention infringes on the fundamental right to personal liberty and must be exercised with caution. The judgment reiterated that the MPDA Act should not be employed as a tool to keep individuals perpetually behind bars without substantial evidence of threat to public order.
The High Court also noted procedural lapses, including the unexplained delay between the in-camera statements and the detention order, as well as the absence of any subsequent offenses by Mane after his release on bail. The court criticized the authorities for not challenging the bail order if they believed Mane posed a continuing threat.
As a result, the court allowed Mane's petition, set aside the detention order, and ordered his immediate release, provided he was not required in any other case. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding individual liberties against overreach in preventive detention cases.
Bottom Line:
The singular incident of private assault or individualistic offence cannot be used as a ground to hold a person as a "dangerous person" under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). Detention orders under Section 3(2) of the Act must strictly align with the requirement of maintaining public order and not simply law and order.
Statutory provision(s): Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981; Articles 21, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India.
