State cannot extend preventive detention from 90 days to one year after initially limiting it, Bombay High Court rules, ordering detainee’s release

The Commissioner of Police, Pune City, passed a detention order against the petitioner on 16 June 2026 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act); the petitioner was detained from 17 June 2026.

The State Government approved the order on 26 June 2026 and specified detention for 90 days from the date of actual detention.

After the Advisory Board reported on 27 July 2026 that there was sufficient cause for further detention, the State Government passed a confirmation order on 4 September 2026 directing detention for 12 months from the date of actual detention.

The petitioner challenged the extension from 90 days to 12 months.

1. Whether, after initially limiting detention to 90 days, the State Government could extend it to 12 months through a subsequent confirmation order following the Advisory Board’s report.

2. Whether the confirmation order was vitiated by non-application of mind and lack of material supporting the extended period of detention.

Under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act, an order made by an empowered officer must be approved by the State Government within 12 days to remain in force.

Section 10 requires the State Government to refer the case to the Advisory Board within three weeks of detention.

Under Section 12(1), where the Advisory Board finds sufficient cause for detention, the State Government may confirm the detention order and continue detention for such period as it thinks fit, subject to Section 13; Section 13 fixes the maximum period at 12 months from the date of detention.

The Act therefore permits detention for up to 12 months but does not require the State Government to impose that maximum period.

The Court held that the State Government’s 26 June 2026 order did more than approve the detention order: it expressly limited detention to 90 days.

Although the Advisory Board later found sufficient cause for further detention, its report did not specify a period, and the Court found no other material supporting an increase from 90 days to 12 months.

The 4 September order also referred generically to considering the detenue’s representation “if any,” without stating whether a representation had been made or considered; the Court treated this as evidence of non-application of mind.

It further held that the later order, framed as a confirmation of the original detention order, could not modify the 90-day period already fixed by the State Government.

As the 90-day period specified in the 26 June 2026 order had expired, it held that the petitioner could not be detained further under the detention order challenged in the petition.

It directed his release forthwith unless he was required in another case, made the Rule absolute, and disposed of the petition.