Pune Preventive Detainee To Be Released Unless Needed In Another Case After Maharashtra’s Unexplained Nearly Seven-Month Delay On His Representation: Bombay HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State Government’s unexplained delay in obtaining the Detaining Authority’s remarks and deciding the Petitioner’s representation violated his constitutional right to its earliest consideration.

The court held

The Court held that the unexplained delay violated the Petitioner’s valuable right under Article 22 and allowed the petition.

It also directed

It directed that the Petitioner be released forthwith in connection with the detention order dated 29 December 2025, unless required in another case; the Rule was made absolute and the petition disposed of.

01Facts

The District Magistrate, Pune, made a detention order against the Petitioner on 29 December 2025.

¶ 1, 3

The order relied on one registered offence arising from an alleged assault on the Petitioner’s wife, two in-camera witness statements concerning incidents in October and November 2025, and five earlier registered offences.

¶ 1, 3

The Petitioner’s challenge was ultimately confined to the alleged delay in deciding his representation.

¶ 4, 6

The State’s affidavit stated that the representation was received on 27 January 2026, that remarks were sought from the Detaining Authority that day, and that those remarks were received only on 12 August 2026. The State rejected the representation on 18 August 2026.

¶ 9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State Government’s unexplained delay in obtaining the Detaining Authority’s remarks and deciding the Petitioner’s representation violated his constitutional right to its earliest consideration.

¶ 7–10

ii.2. Whether, in light of that delay, the Petitioner’s continued detention could be permitted.

¶ 10

03Law Applied

Article 22 of the Constitution of India protects a detenue’s valuable right to make a representation and requires its earliest consideration.

¶ 10

A substantial and unexplained delay in considering a representation infringes that right and may render continued detention impermissible.

¶ 10

The judgment does not cite any statute beyond the Constitution or rely on any judicial precedent.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 118

04Reasoning

The State acknowledged that the representation was received on 27 January 2026 but provided no explanation for the period before the Detaining Authority’s remarks were received on 12 August 2026.

¶ 9–10

The Court found this gap enormous and unexplained. Because the representation had not been considered with the urgency required by Article 22, the Petitioner’s right to its earliest consideration was impaired, making his continued detention impermissible.

¶ 10