The Bombay High Court ruled that participating in a political rally that later turns violent is not a sufficient reason to initiate preventive detention against an individual.

The Court made this declaration while ordering the release of a man who had been detained for his involvement in a rally demanding Maratha Reservation.

The FIR accused the petitioner of participating in a political rally supporting Maratha Reservation, which later turned violent. The petitioner's involvement in the rally was part of a larger group of 600-700 unnamed individuals, as well as 50 identified individuals, including the petitioner. The violence during the rally led to accusations that the petitioner had thrown stones at a shop.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi said, "Undisputedly the said FIR is registered in relation to protest in support of demand for Maratha Reservation. It appears that the petitioner was part of a political rally which took ugly violent turn. It is surprising that on the basis of such FIRs, the authority (District Magistrate) has arrived at subjective satisfaction to take drastic action against the petitioner of placing him under preventive detention. There can be absolutely no justification for curtailing liberty of an individual merely on the ground of participation in a political rally, although the same may have taken ugly violent turn,"

Despite the petitioner's involvement in the protest, the authorities singled him out for preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders/Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Black-Market Traders Act of 1981 (MPDA). The Court, however, found that the grounds for his detention were unfounded.

While CCTV footage showed the petitioner throwing stones, the Court pointed out that other individuals had also engaged in similar acts of violence, and it could have been a spur-of-the-moment decision during the protest. The Court added, "It is true that the CCTV footage records that the petitioner was seen pelting stone on a shop during the course of violence, the panchnama shows such acts were committed by other persons as well. It is quite possible that when the protest took violent turn some wrong was committed by the petitioner at the heat of moment. However, that by itself, cannot be a ground to curtail his liberty by placing him under preventive detention,"

Additionally, the bench highlighted that the police had charged the petitioner with serious offenses under sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as various provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. However, the Court noted, "The petitioner was not found with any explosive substance or any dangerous weapon. He was merely seen pelting stone. On that basis, he could not have been singled out for curtailing his liberty by an order of preventive detention,"

The Court further pointed out that there was an eight-month delay between the issuance of the preventive detention order and its implementation. This delay, according to the bench, violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

Based on these observations, the Court quashed the preventive detention order and directed the authorities to immediately release the petitioner.

Cause Title: Nikhil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2025:BHC-AUG:1854-DB]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates A.R. Hange & R.G. Hange

Respondent: Advocate A.D. Wange

Click here to read/download Order