State Authorities Must Curtail And Streamline Approval Process For Preventive Detention Orders: Bombay High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act).

A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, while allowing the petition, observed: “it is the need of the hour for the State Authorities to take proactive steps to ensure that the process of approval of the Detention Order is firstly curtailed and then made more efficient in the terms of saving time, effort and resources. Prima facie we feel that there are to many officers in the chain of hierarchy of officers who check the proposal. The movement of the proposal from table after table seems to be unnecessary,”

Background

The petitioner had challenged the detention order on the ground that the proposal was moved by the sponsoring authority before verification of in-camera witness statements by a superior officer, thereby rendering the proposal incomplete and procedurally defective.

It was contended that in-camera statements of witnesses were recorded in December 2024 but were verified only later, after the proposal had already been forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, thereby vitiating the detention process.

The State opposed the petition by submitting that the Assistant Commissioner of Police performs a dual role of verifying in-camera statements and administratively scrutinising the proposal, and that such verification at a later stage did not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook an extensive survey of jurisprudence on preventive detention and reiterated that preventive detention is a jurisdiction of suspicion and not punishment after trial. It emphasised that since courts ordinarily do not examine the sufficiency of material forming subjective satisfaction, procedural safeguards constitute the only real protection available to a detenue.

The Court held that strict compliance with procedural requirements is mandatory and that even technical infractions that strike at the root of the detention process cannot be condoned. The Bench observed that preventive detention involves deprivation of personal liberty without trial, making meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution indispensable.

The Court explained that verification of in-camera statements by a superior officer is not a mere administrative formality but a substantive investigative safeguard intended to ensure genuineness, truthfulness, and reliability of the statements. It held that such verification entails enquiry, cross-verification, and independent assessment, and cannot be treated as a routine or casual exercise.

The Bench clarified that verification must be completed while the proposal is still with the sponsoring authority and before the proposal is moved forward in the administrative hierarchy. A proposal forwarded with unverified in-camera statements was held to be incomplete, defective, and legally unsustainable.

The Court rejected the State’s argument that subsequent verification during administrative checking could cure the defect. It drew a clear distinction between administrative checking of a proposal and investigative verification of in-camera statements, holding that the two serve distinct purposes and cannot be conflated.

The Bench further held that permitting verification after movement of the proposal defeats the very purpose of the safeguard and amounts to a mockery of procedural compliance. It ruled that foundational defects affecting the completeness and genuineness of material relied upon for subjective satisfaction cannot be cured at a later stage.

The Court also addressed systemic inefficiencies in the detention approval process. It was observed that proposals pass through an excessively long chain of officers, resulting in avoidable delays. The Bench stated that such table-to-table movement contributes to procedural lapses and undermines the constitutional mandate of expeditious and fair preventive detention processes.

The Court observed that the State must proactively curtail the approval hierarchy and streamline procedures to save time, effort, and resources. It suggested that reducing the number of intermediary levels would enhance accountability and ensure faster and more effective compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The Bench laid down detailed procedural guidelines to ensure that verification of in-camera statements is conducted independently and at the earliest stage, and that proposals are moved only after foundational safeguards are fully complied with. It emphasised that procedural safeguards cannot be diluted by characterising violations as minor or technical, given the drastic nature of preventive detention.

Conclusion

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

Cause Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere v. The Commissioner of Police & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:58159-DB)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates M Ganesh Gupta a/w Sahil Ghorpade, Roshni Naaz, Surya P. Gupta, Madan Khansole, Priyanka Rathod, Tushar Gaikwad

State: Shri Shreekant V. Gavand, APP

Click here to read/download Judgment