Breach Of Law & Order Does Not By Itself Amount To Disturbance Of Public Order: Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Cost On State

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a detention order dated passed by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under the MPDA Act. At the time of the order, the detenue was already in judicial custody in connection with another criminal case. However, the detention order was not served immediately and was executed nearly eleven months later, after the detenue was released on bail in May 2025.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar, while directing the State Government to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000 to the detenue, observed that, “a breach of law and order does not, by itself, amount to a disturbance of public order. The material placed before the detaining authority fails to demonstrate that the petitioner’s alleged criminal activities had the effect of disturbing the even tempo of life of the community or of creating a general atmosphere of fear and insecurity in the minds of the public at large.”

Advocate Harshal P. Randhir represented the petitioner, while P.R. Bharaswadkar, APP, appeared on behalf of the respondents

Background

The matter arose out of a detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). At that time, when the order was issued, the petitioner was already in judicial custody in connection with another criminal case. Despite this, the detention order was neither served nor executed for nearly eleven months and was instead kept pending until his release on bail in May 2025, when it was finally enforced.

The detenue challenged the order before the Bombay High Court, contending that it was vitiated by reliance on irrelevant material, including reference to a crime in which he was not an accused, as well as by unexplained delay in its execution. The petitioner further argued that the detention order violated constitutional safeguards since crucial documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not supplied in a language understood by him.

Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court, at the outset, noted that preventive detention is an exceptional measure which directly impinges on personal liberty and must conform strictly to constitutional and statutory requirements.

Relying on Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. (1975), the Court reiterated that detention commences only from the date of actual custody and not from the date of passing of the order. However, the Court clarified that “this position of law does not authorize the detaining authority to sit over the execution of an order at its pleasure.”

Furthermore, referring to Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (1991), the Bench underlined that three conditions must co-exist for passing a detention order against a person already in custody: awareness of custody, real possibility of release on bail, and likelihood of indulging in prejudicial activities upon release. In the present case, the Bench observed, the “detention order against the petitioner was made in July 2024 and petitioner was granted bail only in May 2025 that is almost 10 months later” and that on “applying these facts to the principle laid down in the Kamrunnisa (supra) condition No.(ii) stands not satisfied.”

The Court also found fault with the authorities for citing a crime as a reason for issuing the detention order, in which the detenue was neither an accused nor connected. While rejecting the explanation that it was a “typographical error”, the Bench remarked that “this defect of relying upon an unconnected crime with the petitioners goes to the roots of the subjective satisfaction and cannot be cured by way of any subsequent explanation much less with such irresponsible explanation like typographical error or inadvertent mistake when the authorities are dealing with the personal liberty of a citizen though he may be facing criminal charges.”

Significantly, the High Court, while distinguishing between “law and order” and “public order,” cited Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, observing that in the matter at hand, “the subjective satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent disturbance of public order is completely absent”.

Another infirmity that the Bench noted was the failure to provide translated copies of crucial documents such as remand orders, which were supplied only in English despite the detenue being a Marathi-medium student. Citing Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel v. Union of India (1981) and Powanammal v. State of T.N. (1999), the Court held that the “requirement of article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is that the grounds of detention and relied-upon documents must be effectively communicated to the detenue in a language that he understands so as to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation”, and that the, “failure to furnish a translation also vitiates the order of detention.”

The Court also relied on T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989) and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India (2006), observing that “the live and reasonable nexus between the alleged activities and purpose of detention was irretrievably lost by the unexplained delay of nearly over a year”, which rendered the detention order unsustainable.

Conclusion

Allowing the writ petition, the Court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenue if not required in any other case.

The Bench further directed that compensation in the sum of Rupees Two Lakh be paid to the petitioner by the State Government. The State Government, the Court directed, shall recover the said amount from the salary of the detaining authority that passed the illegal detention order against the petitioner.

Cause Title: Dikhshant Dadu Devidas Sapakle v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:27267-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Harshal P. Randhir

Respondents: P.R. Bharaswadkar, APP

Click here to read/download Judgment