- Case
- SANDESH ALIAS SHILVYA LAJRAS CHOPADE v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 09-01-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bottleggers Drug-offenders Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act.
Facts: The petitioner was detained under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Persons Engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A. Act). The detention order was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, on 16 February 2024. The petitioner challenged the detention order based on the delay in considering his representation.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, seeking to set aside the detention order.
Issue: Was there an unreasonable delay in considering the petitioner's representation against the detention order, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and rendering the detention order liable to be set aside?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that there was an unexplained and unacceptable delay in considering the petitioner's representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The detention order was quashed and set aside.
Reasoning: The Court found a delay of 14 days in sending the representation from Yerwada Central Prison to Mantralaya, which was not adequately explained. Furthermore, after the representation reached the Desk Special-3B, it remained unattended for a significant period (from 30 October 2024 to 29 November 2024). The Court emphasized that when the liberty of a detenu is at stake, authorities must act with care and promptitude in deciding the representation at the earliest, as mandated by Article 22(5). The explanation that the representation was "not checked inadvertently" was deemed unacceptable. The Court stated, "When liberty of a detenu is in question, such explanation is totally unacceptable." The unexplained delay in processing the representation was sufficient ground to set aside the detention order.
