top of page
Search

Landmark Victories in Preventive Detention Matters

  • Writer: Rahil Kazi
    Rahil Kazi
  • Aug 16
  • 2 min read

At KAZI LEGAL, we take pride in relentlessly safeguarding the constitutional rights of individuals against arbitrary state action. Recently, we successfully argued a series of cases before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, where preventive detention orders under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA Act, 1981) were challenged.


In each case, the Hon’ble Court recognized the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and emphasized that detention powers, being exceptional in nature, cannot be exercised mechanically.


  • Kajal @ Rafiq Shaikh Rashid v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. – The Court quashed the detention order dated 22.05.2023, observing that three of the crimes relied upon were stale and lacked proximity to the detention order. The Court also held that reliance on a PITA Act case and in-camera statements, without proper supporting material, showed non-application of mind. Ultimately, the Court held that the alleged activities, at best, created a law-and-order problem but did not amount to disturbance of public order

  • Tanvir Shaikh Mukhtar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. – The detention order dated 19.10.2023 was set aside after the Court found no live link between the offences relied upon and the order of detention. It was specifically held that stale cases (including one under MCOCA from 2018) could not justify preventive detention in 2023. The Court further noted that in-camera witness statements were vague and did not show public involvement. The Court concluded that the alleged acts, at most, created law-and-order issues but not public disorder

  • Rajesh @ Dadu Eknath Nikumbh (Dhobi) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. – In this case, the Court (23.09.2024) quashed the detention order, holding it to be a “classic case of non-application of mind.” The detaining authority had relied on offences already considered in a previous detention order, and the fresh offence relied upon was still under investigation. The Court deprecated mechanical reliance on vague in-camera statements and delayed communication of confirmation orders. Importantly, this judgment has been reported , setting a strong precedent that preventive detention cannot be sustained without strict compliance with constitutional safeguards.


These victories reaffirm the principle that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law and must always withstand strict judicial scrutiny.


📑 Read the Full Judgments:


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page