Case Note & Summary
By way of this criminal writ petition, a detenue challenged an order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Solapur on 2 April 2025 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The petitioner was lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. He submitted a representation dated 9 April 2025 to the State Government through the prison authorities, seeking expeditious consideration and revocation of the detention order. The prison forwarded the representation on 11 April 2025. The representation was received at the office of the Detaining Authority on 15 April 2025. The Detaining Authority sent its parawise comments to the State Government only on 8 May 2025, after a delay of 23 days. The State Government rejected the representation on 14 May 2025 according to the Detaining Authority's reply, or on 15 May 2025 according to the State's reply. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 23 April 2025, contending that no communication had been received from the State Government and that the authorities had delayed consideration of the representation. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the unexplained 23-day delay by the Detaining Authority between receipt of the representation and forwarding of comments to the State Government violated the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which requires expeditious consideration of a detenue's representation in cases of preventive detention. The petitioner argued that the State Government and Detaining Authority failed to consider the representation diligently and communicate the result, making the continued detention illegal. The respondent authorities contended that the delay was adequately explained by administrative processes and intervening public holidays. The State explained that after receiving remarks from the Detaining Authority, the file moved through various officers on 13, 14, and 15 May 2025, and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) rejected the representation. However, the Detaining Authority offered no explanation for the period from 15 April 2025 to 8 May 2025. The High Court examined the replies and found that the period of 23 days between receipt of the representation at the Detaining Authority's office and sending of parawise comments to the State Government was wholly unexplained. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti v. Union of India, (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 148, where the Supreme Court held that unexplained delay in processing a representation violates the constitutional obligation under Article 22(5) and renders the detention order invalid. Applying this principle, the Bombay High Court held that the unexplained delay by the Detaining Authority vitiated the detention order. The Court set aside the order of detention dated 2 April 2025 and allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clause (b), directing the parties to act on the authenticated order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation - Constitution of India, Article 22(5); Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, Section 3 - The Detaining Authority received the detenue's representation on 15 April 2025 but sent parawise comments to the State Government only on 8 May 2025, taking 23 days without any explanation. The High Court held that the absence of any explanation for this delay violated the constitutional obligation of expeditious consideration under Article 22(5), rendering the continued detention invalid. The Court relied on Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the detention order dated 2 April 2025. Held that unexplained delay in processing a representation under preventive detention law vitiates the detention order. (Paras 6-9) B) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Binding Precedent on Delay in Representation - Constitution of India, Article 22(5) - The Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 148 held that unexplained delay in forwarding representation and obtaining comments violates Article 22(5) and invalidates detention. The High Court followed this precedent. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the unexplained delay of 23 days by the Detaining Authority in forwarding parawise comments on the detenue's representation to the State Government, between 15 April 2025 and 8 May 2025, vitiated the order of preventive detention under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed; order of detention dated 2 April 2025 set aside in terms of prayer clause (b); parties to act on authenticated order.
Law Points
- Preventive detention representation must be considered expeditiously
- unexplained delay by detaining authority violates Article 22(5) of Constitution
- detaining authority must explain each day of delay
- continued detention becomes illegal if representation not promptly considered
- denial of constitutional right invalidates detention order
