The Aurangabad Bench finds insufficient evidence to substantiate claims of activities disturbing public order under the MPDA Act.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has quashed the preventive detention order against Shubham Balasaheb Kardule, who was previously detained 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 order, issued by the District Magistrate of Beed, categorized Kardule as a "sand smuggler," citing activities prejudicial to public order.
The bench, comprising Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, emphasized the lack of substantial evidence linking Kardule's activities to public disorder. The detention was primarily based on Crime No. 520/2025 and two in-camera statements, which the court found to be vague and inadequately verified.
The judgment underscored the distinction between "law and order" and "public order," stating that preventive detention is an exceptional measure intended to prevent future conduct threatening public order. The court highlighted that mere solitary criminal acts without a direct link to public disorder do not justify detention under the MPDA Act.
Furthermore, the bench noted that the allegations against Kardule in the FIR did not meet the statutory definition of a "sand smuggler" as per Section 2(e-2) of the MPDA Act. The judgment referenced past rulings, including the Supreme Court's decision in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, to support its reasoning that disturbances affecting law and order do not necessarily equate to public disorder.
The ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of preventive detention laws, reinforcing the necessity of clear, verifiable evidence to substantiate claims of activities threatening public order. Kardule's release was ordered, contingent on no other pending offences against him.
Bottom line:-
Preventive detention order under MPDA Act cannot be sustained if there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner's activities disturb public order or meet the statutory definition of "sand smuggler."
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 3(3) and 12(1) of the MPDA Act.
