Bombay HC Quashes Pune Man’s MPDA Detention, Finding Conflicting Grounds Impaired His Right To Make An Effective Representation

The Petitioner challenged his detention under an order dated 22 January 2026. The grounds described him as a dangerous person by reference to past offences and preventive actions, but later stated that the Detaining Authority’s subjective satisfaction rested on C.R. No. 718 of 2025 and two in-camera witness statements.

The Petitioner argued that this inconsistency obscured the material he had to answer and impaired his ability to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The State submitted that the past incidents merely recorded his history and that the detention decision relied on the specified recent material.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution guarantees a detenue an opportunity to make an effective representation against detention; the grounds must therefore communicate clearly the basis and material supporting the detention decision.

Under Section 2(b-1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (“MPDA Act”), a “dangerous person” is one who habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets specified offences; Section 2(a)(iv) concerns a dangerous person’s activities that adversely affect, or are likely to affect, the maintenance of public order.

The Court also referred to Vijay Kumar Dharna v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 60, in connection with the constitutional right to make an effective representation.

Paragraph 2 of the grounds stated that the Petitioner’s past offences and preventive history established that he was a dangerous person and that his activities prejudiced public order; paragraph 8, however, identified C.R. No. 718 of 2025 and the two in-camera statements as the material relied upon for the subjective satisfaction.

The Court held that these were substantive, inconsistent statements—not merely a passing reference to past history—and could leave the Petitioner uncertain whether to address the past incidents, the specified recent material, or both in his representation. That lack of clarity impaired the constitutional safeguard, particularly given the summary nature of preventive detention.

It made the Rule absolute, quashed and set aside the detention order dated 22 January 2026, and directed the Petitioner’s immediate release unless required in another case.