'Unconvincing': Bombay HC Pulls Up Authorities For Delay In Deciding Representation Against Preventive Detention Due To Holidays, Official Work

The Bombay High Court while ordering the immediate release of a man, detained under a preventive detention order, said that the authorities responsible for curtailing the fundamental rights of a citizen must act with promptitude and with a sense of urgency.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande while dealing with the plea filed by one Sadhu Pawar, noted that he had forwarded his representation against the preventive detention, on January 25, 2024, and the authorities decided the same after more than a month, i.e. February 26, 2024.

The authorities said the detailed report could not be prepared by the sponsoring authority as some of the policemen were on bandobast duty and some on election duty. They further cited public holidays, weekly holidays etc for the said delay in deciding the representation of the detenu.

The bench underscored that the law clearly mandates that in case if the explanation offered by the authorities is found to be satisfactory, the period consumed in taking a decision on the representation of detenu, may not amount to delay. However, it observed,

"The Detaining Authority in a very casual manner has explained that parawise comments were called by the State Government on January 29, 2024 and the representation of the detenu was sent to the Sponsoring Authority to prepare a reply and thereafter it is stated that since the concerned Police Station was busy in bandobast duty and other official work and some of the staff was on election duty and in between there was Saturday and Sunday and even the Shivaji Jayanti intervened between this period, time was consumed to prepare the parawise comments to be offered to the Detaining Authority, which were in turn to be forwarded to the State Government."

The bench in its order pronounced on July 1, refused to accept the explanation as sought to be given by the State and particularly the Detaining Authority.

"Since the gap between the receipt and disposal of the representation is 30 days and the explanation offered, lack promptitude and expediency, as 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 judges observed in the order.

The order further recorded the satisfaction of the judges that the delay in deciding the representation was "unexplained."

"..this delay not being convincing, has proved to be fatal to his right which is bestowed upon him by the Constitution, with an expectation that the decision on his representation shall be taken by the State Government with striking urgency. Since we are satisfied on this ground itself, that the Detention Order cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside," the bench said.

Case Details: Sadhu Bhaskar Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 742 of 2024)

Click here to read/download the judgment