Detention order set aside for failure to verify in-camera statements before proposal submission, highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed the preventive detention order against Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere, citing procedural irregularities. The court emphasized the mandatory verification of in-camera statements by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) prior to the submission of the detention proposal by the Sponsoring Authority, a step crucial for procedural compliance under preventive detention laws.
The case, presided over by Justices A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, revolved around the detention order issued on February 26, 2025, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The petitioner, detained at Yerwada Central Prison, challenged the order on grounds that the detention proposal included unverified in-camera statements, rendering it incomplete and legally unsustainable.
The court underscored the importance of procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases, distinguishing them from ordinary criminal proceedings. It highlighted that preventive detention relies heavily on procedural compliance to protect individual liberty, as the detention process is summary and without trial.
In its judgment, the court noted that the verification of in-camera statements is a critical investigative exercise that must be conducted independently and thoroughly by the ACP before the proposal leaves the Sponsoring Authority. This ensures the genuineness and reliability of statements, which may form the foundation of the detention order.
The High Court criticized the practice of verifying in-camera statements after the proposal's submission, as it undermines the procedural safeguards designed to prevent false or fabricated evidence from being used against individuals. The court reiterated that any procedural lapses, even if technical, could invalidate a detention order.
The ruling aligns with previous judgments emphasizing strict adherence to procedural requirements under Article 22 of the Constitution and preventive detention laws, to ensure that the deprivation of liberty occurs only when legally justified.
The court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, provided he is not required in any other case, and urged authorities to act on the authenticated copy of the judgment. This decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal liberty against procedural infractions in preventive detention cases.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention - Verification of in-camera statements must be done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) before the proposal is submitted by the Sponsoring Authority to ensure procedural compliance. Verification after submission of the proposal is unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Article 22 of the Constitution of India, Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981
