HC strikes down prisoner’s detention order caused by delay in hearing appeal

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently quashed a detention order of a 22-year-old man lodged at Pune’s Yerawada Central Jail due to a delay by the Maharashtra government in hearing his appeal against it. The court observed that prolonged detention was illegal and violated the man’s fundamental rights, and ordered his immediate release.

Based on three criminal cases and two in-camera statements, Somnath Bajrang Jadhav was declared to be a “dangerous person” under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, also known as the MPDA Act, and sent to preventive detention.

Jadhav alleged that his detention order, issued on August 30, 2024, was passed without the application of mind and underscored procedural lapses. He filed a petition challenging his detention, highlighting the delay by the state government in considering his appeal against the detention order, thereby violating his fundamental rights.

The plea highlighted that his appeal was sent to the superintendent of Yerawada jail on October 4 and was supposed to be transferred to the state government for expeditious consideration. However, the government failed to act until December 3, the plea said.

Advocates Jayshree Tripathi and Anjali Raut, representing Jadhav, contented that the state government failed to respond to Jadhav’s appeal. Due to the delay in taking a decision, his detention continued, which the accused said was illegal.

Additional public prosecutor MM Deshmukh opposed the plea, stating that Jadhav’s appeal, dated October 4, was received in the prison on October 7. Following this, it was forwarded to the additional chief secretary through email on October 8. However, it was inadvertently not checked until November 29, after which the order was passed on December 3.

A division bench led by justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande quashed Jadhav’s detention order, observing the unexplained delay in hearing his appeal. “If the delay is not explained, the delay becomes fatal, and the order of detention needs to be set aside,” the bench said.

Considering that Jadhav’s personal liberty was curtailed, the court asked the state authorities to expedite his appeal procedure. It noted the state government’s failure to address his appeal for a prolonged period without any satisfactory explanation.

“It is well settled that right of a person who has been preventively detained has a right to make a representation and to be considered by the competent authority as early as possible, which is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 (5),” the court said, adding that such delays render the continued detention constitutionally invalid.