Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Ashok Pujari, was a detenu under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. He was already lodged in jail in connection with criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code and Bombay Police Act when the detention order was passed on 16.11.2011 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special). The order was served on him in jail. The detenu filed a letter petition from Nashik Central Prison, which was treated as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court appointed Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar as Amicus Curiae. The main contention was that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated because the detenu was already in jail, and there was no material to show that he would be released on bail or that he would continue his prejudicial activities. The court examined the grounds of detention and found that the detaining authority had merely stated that there was a possibility of the detenu being released on bail and continuing his activities, but this was not supported by any cogent material. The court held that the subjective satisfaction was based on ipse dixit and not on any objective material, and therefore the detention order was invalid. The court quashed the detention order and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Detenu in Jail - The detaining authority must consider whether the detenu is likely to be released on bail and whether there is a real possibility of his engaging in prejudicial activities after release; failure to do so vitiates the detention order. - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, Section 3(3) - The court held that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority was based on ipse dixit and not supported by any material, as the detenu was already in jail and there was no cogent material to show that he would be released on bail or that he would continue his prejudicial activities. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 is valid when the detenu was already in judicial custody at the time of passing the order.
Final Decision
The court quashed the detention order dated 16.11.2011 and directed the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.
Law Points
- Preventive detention order cannot be passed mechanically when detenu is already in jail
- subjective satisfaction must be based on cogent material showing likelihood of release on bail and continued prejudicial activity
- failure to consider alternative remedies vitiates detention order
