Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, challenged the detention order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Wardha under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons, video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPD Act). The detenu was alleged to be a dangerous person involved in criminal activities, with several cases registered against him from 2012 to 2021. The Sub-District Magistrate, after considering the criminal cases and in-camera statements, passed the detention order. The petitioner raised several grounds, but primarily argued that the detenu's representation was not considered expeditiously by the State Government, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court examined the timeline: the detenu made a representation on 10.07.2023, which was received by the State Government on 17.07.2023, but was rejected only on 17.08.2023, after a delay of 31 days. The State offered no explanation for this delay. The court held that such inordinate delay infringed the detenu's fundamental right under Article 22(5) and vitiated the detention order. Consequently, the court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu's release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Right to Representation - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - The detenu has a fundamental right to make a representation and to have it considered expeditiously by the detaining authority and the State Government. Any unexplained or inordinate delay in considering the representation vitiates the detention order. (Paras 4-6)
B) Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Dangerous Person - The District Magistrate passed a detention order under Section 3 of the MPD Act declaring the detenu a 'dangerous person' based on criminal cases and in-camera statements. However, the detention order was quashed due to delay in considering the representation. (Paras 2-3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation by the State Government vitiates the detention order and infringes the fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order dated 02.06.2023 and the order dated 17.07.2023, and directed the detenu's release unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Right to make representation
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- Speedy consideration of representation
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act
- 1981
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (11) 91
Criminal Writ Petition No.591 of 2023
Vinay Joshi, M.W. Chandwani
Mrs. Jayshree Tripathi (h/f Shri R.R. Vyas) for petitioner, Shri S.S. Doifode, APP for respondents
The District Magistrate, Wardha; The State of Maharashtra; The Superintendent, Central Jail, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging preventive detention order under MPD Act
Remedy Sought
Quashing of detention order dated 02.06.2023 and order dated 17.07.2023, and release of detenu
Filing Reason
Detenu's representation was not considered expeditiously by the State Government, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution
Previous Decisions
Detention order passed by District Magistrate, Wardha on 02.06.2023; representation rejected by State Government on 17.08.2023
Issues
Whether the delay in considering the detenu's representation by the State Government vitiates the detention order?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the representation made on 10.07.2023 was not considered expeditiously; there was a delay of 31 days without explanation, violating Article 22(5).
Respondents argued that the representation was considered and rejected on 17.08.2023, but did not explain the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to make a representation under Article 22(5) includes the right to have it considered expeditiously. Unexplained delay in considering the representation by the State Government vitiates the detention order.
Judgment Excerpts
The detenu has independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The representation was made on 10.07.2023, received by the State Government on 17.07.2023, but was rejected on 17.08.2023. There is a delay of 31 days in considering the representation.
Inordinate delay in considering the representation infringes the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The District Magistrate, Wardha passed a detention order on 02.06.2023 under Section 3 of the MPD Act. The detenu made a representation on 10.07.2023. The State Government received it on 17.07.2023 and rejected it on 17.08.2023. The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.591 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the detention order and the rejection order. The court heard arguments on 27.10.2023 and pronounced judgment on 30.11.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons, video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981: Section 3, Section 3(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 22(5)
