Lack of Promptitude and Violation of Constitutional Rights’ Undermines Detention Under MPDA Act: Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order

Share:
tax rights FIR child fir Quashed 306 prima Lack of Promptitude and Violation of Constitutional Rights' Undermines Detention Under MPDA Act: Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order bar Bail Bombay High Court Upholds Right to Fair Trial: Directs Production of Withheld Documents in Sexual Assault Case money interest sexual Landlord Date of Decision: 02 November 2023 Chetak Technology Ltd. VS Union of India teacher acquittal murder bombay sexual sexual divorce land High Court sex maharashtra

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court on February 29, 2024, quashed the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act) against Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar. The Court, comprising Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, emphasized the lack of promptitude in the issuance of the detention order and the violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

The judgment scrutinized the validity of the preventive detention order issued under the MPDA Act. The Court examined the delay in the issuance of the detention order, non-consideration of the bail order, and the violation of constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

The petitioner, Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar, challenged the detention order dated October 6, 2023, under the MPDA Act, where he was declared a ‘dangerous person’ based on a sole offense (C.R. No.210/2023). The grounds for challenging the detention included a significant delay in the issuance of the detention order, non-consideration of the bail order, and violations of constitutional rights.

The Court observed a “significant delay” in passing the detention order, noting a lack of explanation for the delay, which resulted in questioning the detention’s legitimacy. It held, “When the respondents are taking drastic action under the Act against the petitioner, they are expected to be diligent because personal liberty of the proposed detenue is at stake.”

On the issue of non-consideration of the bail order, the Court found a lack of proper application of mind by the detaining authority and stated, “Nonconsideration of order releasing detenue on bail would vitiate detention order.”

Regarding the violation of constitutional rights, the Court noted the petitioner’s rights were infringed as the rejection of his representation was not communicated effectively and the documents provided were largely illegible, impairing his ability to make an effective representation.

The Court quashed the detention order dated October 6, 2023, passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Ahmednagar. It was held that the order was vitiated by procedural improprieties and violation of constitutional rights, ordering the petitioner to be set at liberty.

Date of Decision: February 29, 2024

Nilesh Sunil Pendulkar vs. The District Magistrate, Ahmednagar & Others

Download Judgment

Share: