Read Time: 04 minutes
The high court, while setting aside the order of the detention authority, said that the authorities should act with a sense of urgency when a fundamental right is curtailed
The Bombay High Court has recently quashed a detention order passed by the authorities for a person who was detained and whose representation was delayed by the authorities citing holidays and official work.
The division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing a petition filed by the detenu challenging the detention order.
The petitioner was detained by an order dated 19.12.2023, passed by the District Magistrate, Pune, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The grounds of detention were communicated to him, and the State Government confirmed his detention on 28.12.2023.
The petitioner exercised his right by submitting a representation for consideration, specifically highlighting the grounds on which the detention order was challenged. The representation was submitted on 25.01.2024.
The report of the detention order was received by the government on 21.12.2023, and upon due consideration, the detention order was approved on 28.12.2023
A reference was made to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act on 28.12.2023, and the Advisory Board forwarded its opinion/recommendation on 19.01.2024.
Upon receipt of the same by the State Government on 30.01.2024, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government.
The authorities stated that there was a delay in considering the representation because the concerned police station was busy with bandobast duty and other official work, and some of the staff was on election duty. Additionally, Saturday, Sunday, and Shivaji Jayanti intervened during this period.
The high court, while setting aside the order of the detention authority, said that the authorities should act with a sense of urgency when a fundamental right is curtailed.
“it is expected that the Authorities who are responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen should act with utmost promptitude and diligence and with a sense of urgency, since we have noticed that this is precisely what is lacking in the approach of the Respondent-Authorities,” the order states.
Case title: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
