Conflicting statements on the basis for detention vitiate the order by impairing effective representation.

The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, passed a detention order against the petitioner on 10 October 2025 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), with a separate order directing his detention at Chandrapur.

The grounds of detention referred to the petitioner’s past offences and preventive action, as well as one registered offence and two in-camera witness statements.

The petitioner argued that paragraphs 2 and 8 of the grounds gave conflicting accounts of the material relied upon, impairing his ability to make an effective representation.

The State opposed the contention.

Whether the grounds of detention contained conflicting statements about the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority to reach its subjective satisfaction.

Whether that conflict prejudiced the petitioner’s right to make his earliest effective representation and rendered the detention order unsustainable.

Section 2(b-1) of the MPDA Act defines a “dangerous person” as one who habitually commits, attempts to commit, or abets specified offences under Chapters XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959.

Section 2(a)(iv) provides that, in the case of a dangerous person, conduct is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order where the person is engaged, or preparing to engage, in activities as a dangerous person that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect public order.

The Court treated strict compliance with these requirements, and clarity in the grounds enabling an effective representation, as essential to the validity of the detention.

Paragraph 2 of the grounds linked the petitioner’s status as a dangerous person and the alleged prejudice to public order to his past criminal activities, including IPC offences.

By contrast, paragraph 8 stated that the Detaining Authority had relied on the latest registered offence and two in-camera statements to reach the same subjective satisfaction.

The Court found these accounts to be in conflict, creating uncertainty about the basis of detention.

That uncertainty directly affected the petitioner’s ability to make his earliest effective representation; accordingly, the detention order could not stand.

It made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) and ordered the petitioner’s release forthwith, unless required in another case.