Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Vasant Jadhav, challenged an order of detention dated 30th June 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention order was served on the petitioner on 2nd July 2005. The grounds of detention were based on one criminal case (C.R. No.35 of 2005) and three in-camera statements. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raising several grounds. However, at the hearing, the petitioner's counsel pressed only three grounds: Ground No.5 (inordinate delay in issuing the detention order), Ground No.10 (non-application of mind), and Ground No.9 (failure to supply documents). The court found it necessary to address only Ground No.5, as it was sufficient to dispose of the petition. The court noted that the last prejudicial activity relied upon by the detaining authority occurred on 12th March 2005, while the detention order was passed on 30th June 2005, a gap of about 3 months and 18 days. The court observed that the detaining authority failed to explain this delay in the grounds of detention or in the affidavit. Relying on settled legal principles, the court held that unexplained delay in passing a detention order breaks the live link between the prejudicial activities and the need for preventive detention, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the petitioner's release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Delay in Issuance of Detention Order - Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 - Inordinate delay of about 4 months between the last prejudicial activity (March 2005) and the detention order (30th June 2005) without any explanation by the detaining authority - Held that such unexplained delay breaks the live link between the prejudicial activities and the need for preventive detention, thereby vitiating the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and rendering the detention order illegal (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inordinate delay in issuing the detention order, coupled with failure to explain the delay, vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and renders the detention order illegal.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 30th June 2005 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner-detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Inordinate delay in passing detention order
- failure to explain delay
- vitiates subjective satisfaction of detaining authority
- Article 22(5) of Constitution of India
- Section 3(2) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords
- Bootleggers
- Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act
- 1981
