Bombay HC Orders Release Of MPDA Detainee After Unexplained 7-Month Delay In State Receiving His Representation

The District Magistrate, Pune, ordered the Petitioner’s preventive detention on 12 December 2025 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act).

The Petitioner challenged the detention, relying on the State Government’s alleged failure to consider his representation expeditiously.

The prison authorities stated that the representation was forwarded to the State Government by email and speed post on 13 January 2026, while the Government’s affidavit stated that it was received on 14 August 2026.

The Government considered and rejected it after receipt, communicating the rejection on 25 August 2026; no authority explained the intervening delay.

Whether the unexplained delay in the State Government’s receipt and consideration of the Petitioner’s representation violated his right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Whether that violation rendered the Petitioner’s continued detention unlawful and warranted his release.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution protects a detenu’s right to have a representation against detention considered expeditiously.

An unexplained delay in processing a representation may infringe that right and invalidate continued detention.

The Court also noted the MPDA Act, 1981, including the statutory processes concerning the report to the Government and reference to the Advisory Board, but its decision turned on the Article 22(5) right to expeditious consideration.

The prison affidavit indicated that the representation was sent on 13 January 2026, but the Government stated that it received it only on 14 August 2026.

The Court found no explanation for the period between those dates, a delay of more than seven months.

Although the representation was considered and rejected after receipt, the unexplained delay had already impaired the Petitioner’s right to expeditious consideration under Article 22(5).

The Court therefore held that the continued detention could not stand.

It also directed the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, to look into the delay and, if necessary, conduct an inquiry to prevent recurrence and ensure expeditious consideration of representations.