SANGITA NANDU TORADMAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
High Court of Bombay, Bombay (Criminal)
2025:BHC-AS:45538-DB
Discusses constitutional safeguards in preventive detention and principles for assessing detention orders.
List of Laws: Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; 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 (MPDA Act); General Principles of Law
Legal Discussion:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to challenge the detention order. This is significant because Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The court's acceptance of the petition under this article confirms the availability of judicial review in preventive detention cases, a key takeaway for constitutional law students and practitioners.
- Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India: The judgment discusses the petitioner's right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation against the detention order. The court held that the non-supply of the victim's injury certificate did not impair or violate this right. This interpretation is significant because it clarifies the scope of documents necessary for an "effective representation." The practical implication is that not every document related to the case needs to be supplied, only those vital for making a proper representation. This aligns with the principle that procedural safeguards should not be used to frustrate preventive detention laws.
- 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 (MPDA Act): The detention order was issued under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. The court examined whether the detaining authority followed the procedural requirements of the Act, particularly Section 8(1), which mandates communication of the grounds of detention within five days. The court referred to Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (AIR 2019 SC 3428) to emphasize that there is no statutory obligation to serve the grounds of detention on the very same day. This interpretation is significant because it clarifies the timeline for serving detention orders and grounds. The practical implication is that authorities have a reasonable window to comply, provided there's no inaction or negligence. The judgment also references Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, citing Mehdi Mohamed Joudi v. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 358, to highlight the importance of contemporaneous service of detention orders, grounds, and documents within the stipulated five-day limit. This reinforces the need for timely communication to ensure the detenu can make an effective representation.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment extensively discusses the principles governing preventive detention, particularly the need for the detaining authority to be aware that the detenu is already in custody and to have a reasonable belief that the detenu is likely to be released on bail and would indulge in prejudicial activities. It cites Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 1640) and Veeramani v. State of T.N. (1994) 2 SCC 337 to reinforce these principles. The court emphasizes that the detaining authority's satisfaction must be "subjective" but based on materials, not ipse dixit. This is significant because it sets a high bar for justifying preventive detention, requiring a clear nexus between the detenu's past conduct and the likelihood of future prejudicial activities. The practical implication is that detaining authorities must meticulously document their reasoning and the materials relied upon to withstand judicial scrutiny.