Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court heard three criminal writ petitions together as they involved a common question of law regarding preventive detention orders passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Blackmarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981. The petitioners, who were the detenus, challenged the detention orders on the ground that the State Government had directed their detention for the maximum period of one year from the very outset without periodic review, contrary to the Supreme Court's rulings in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Lahu Shrirang Gatkal v. State of Maharashtra. The petitioners argued that the law laid down in those decisions was clear that the Government could not extend the detention period to the maximum of twelve months in one stroke, and that the impugned orders were therefore vitiated. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions, contending that the Supreme Court's view in Cherukuri Mani and Lahu Shrirang Gatkal was contrary to decisions of larger Benches and that the decision in Lahu Shrirang Gatkal could not be treated as a binding precedent in light of a coordinate Bench decision in Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra. The court carefully considered the submissions and examined Sections 3, 10, 12, and 13 of the Act. It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Harpreet Kaur, which held that the proviso to Section 3(2) only limited the period of delegation of powers and had no bearing on the period of detention itself. The judgment noted that after the Harpreet Kaur decision, the proviso to Section 3(2) had been amended by Act No. 32 of 2017, but the full text of the judgment was not provided, leaving the final determination on the validity of the detention orders unstated in the available excerpt. The matter was reserved on September 29, 2017, and judgment was pronounced on October 13, 2017.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Interpretation of Section 3(2) Proviso - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Blackmarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, Section 3(2) - The restriction in the proviso to Section 3(2) relates to the duration of delegation orders issued to District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police, and not to the period for which a person can be detained; the maximum detention period is separately provided in Section 13 (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention orders are vitiated because they directed detention for one year from the date of detention, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Cherukuri Mani and Lahu Shrirang Gatkal.
Law Points
- The State Government cannot direct extension of period of detention up to maximum period of twelve months in one stroke
- the detention period must be fixed from time to time after confirmation by the Advisory Board
- the proviso to Section 3(2) relates only to delegation of powers and not to detention period
