High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Petitioner Due to Lack of Public Order Threat and Improper Use of Antecedents -- Fundamental Rights Upheld in Preventive Detention Case

Nature of Litigation: Criminal writ petition challenging a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought quashing of the detention order dated 13.10.2025 and release from detention

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged that the detention order violated his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and was based on improper use of antecedents and lack of public order threat

Previous Decisions

The petitioner had a previous detention order under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act executed on 07.07.2023, which was fully served until release on 06.07.2024. He was later arrested for offences under BNS on 17.09.2025 and released on bail on 22.09.2025

Issues

Whether antecedents considered for earlier fully executed detention would form material to be used for subsequent detention Whether a singular incidence of individualistic assault would constitute an offence against public order Whether in camera statements obtained while the detenue was in custody could be used to exercise action under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act instead of challenging the bail order Whether the detaining authority was justified in exercising power under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act without a single incidence indicating an act against public order after release on bail

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that the detention was illegal as it violated Article 21 and was based on stale antecedents The petitioner contended that the assault incident was individualistic and did not affect public order The petitioner submitted that in camera statements were improperly used to bypass bail proceedings The respondents defended the detention as necessary to prevent the petitioner's dangerous activities under the MPDA Act

Ratio Decidendi

Preventive detention orders must be based on fresh material indicating a threat to public order, Antecedents from fully executed detentions cannot be reused without new evidence, Individualistic assaults do not constitute offences against public order, In camera statements cannot substitute proper legal proceedings like bail challenges, The detaining authority must strictly justify actions under preventive detention laws to avoid arbitrariness

Judgment Excerpts

An action u/s 3(2) of the Act had always been questioned by the detenues to be in serious controversy with the fundamental right to Freedom of Personal Life and Liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution Whether the antecedents considered for earlier fully executed detention, would form a material to be used for subsequent detention? Whether a singular incidence apparently of an individualistic assault occurred with intention to daunt a boy to discontinue a love relationship objected by family, would constitute an offence against 'public order'? Without there being not a single incidence indicating an act against public order, after release on bail in the individualistic offence, the detaining authority is justified in exercising the power u/s 3(2) of the Act?

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 13.10.2025 -- Rule was issued and made returnable forthwith -- The Court heard the parties for final disposal considering the nature of the petition -- The judgment was delivered on 03.02.2026, quashing the detention order