Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila Deshmukh recently quashed a detention order passed by a district magistrate.

"With great power comes great responsibility. Thus, greater the power, greater the responsibility. Whilst authorizing detention, it is the bounden duty of the authority to act responsibly and with circumspection and in accordance with law, since under the detention law, a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty," the court observed. 

The bench was hearing a plea filed by Advocate Vishal Sharmali who had challenged the detention order passed against him. Simultaneously, the court was also hearing a petition filed by one Sangeeta Rathod who had challenged the detention order passed against her son and husband.

In the petitions, it was claimed that the petitioners had taken cudgels with the marble lobby by exposing their illegalities and how it was difficult for ordinary citizens to raise their voices and concerns against these illegal and anti-social activities. 

It was submitted that since the petitioner had raised their voices against the lobby, multiple FIR came to be registered. The court was also informed that out of the 8 FIRs, the petitioner had already gotten bail in 7 FIRs. It was further argued that the detention order was passed without application of mind. 

The high court while allowing the petition said that it was a case of abuse of the process of detention law.

"We find that the detention order is passed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in a very mechanical and cavalier manner and as such, cannot be sustained in law. The case in hand is nothing but an abuse of the law of preventive detention," the bench observed. 

The high court further noted that it is the duty of the authority to act responsibly and in accordance with the law while authorizing detention orders. 

"Whilst authorizing detention, it is the bounden duty of the authority to act responsibly and with circumspection and in accordance with law, since under the detention law, a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty. We find that the detention orders have been passed mechanically and casually, contrary to law," the court noted.

The division bench further recorded that under detention law a person's greatest freedom is deprived and therefore there should be meticulous compliance.

"Under the detention law, a person’s greatest of human freedoms i.e. personal liberty is deprived and hence, it is imperative that the laws of preventive detention are strictly construed, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguard, however, technical, is mandatory," the bench recorded.

The high court then quashed the detention order and directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 20000 to each of the detenue.

Case Title: Vishal Kanhaiyalal Shrimali vs Union Territory of Daman & Die & Ors