Bombay High Court Rules Against Preventive Detention for Participation in Political Rally

On January 14, 2025, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi, ordered the release of an individual who had been subjected to preventive detention following his participation in a political rally advocating for Maratha reservations. The rally, which took place on October 31, 2023, escalated into violence, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against 600 to 700 unidentified individuals and 50 identified persons, including the petitioner. The petitioner was accused of pelting stones at a shop during the unrest and was subsequently detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA).

Court's Observations on Preventive Detention

The court emphasized that mere participation in a political rally that later turns violent does not justify the invocation of preventive detention measures. The bench noted that the District Magistrate had not provided evidence indicating that the petitioner organized the rally or instigated the ensuing violence. While CCTV footage showed the petitioner throwing stones, the court acknowledged that such actions might have occurred in the heat of the moment and were not unique to the petitioner. The bench stated, "There can be absolutely no justification for curtailing the liberty of an individual merely on the ground of participation in a political rally, although the same may have taken an ugly violent turn."

Legal Precedents on Preventive Detention

This ruling aligns with previous judgments emphasizing the careful exercise of preventive detention powers. In a 2021 decision, the Bombay High Court held that preventive detention should not serve as an "easy substitute" for addressing ordinary law and order issues. The court highlighted the necessity of distinguishing between individual acts of disorder and activities that disrupt public order, noting that not every violation of law justifies preventive detention.

Implications for Civil Liberties

The court's decision underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberties, particularly in the context of political expression and participation. By ruling that participation in a political rally, even if it turns violent, does not automatically warrant preventive detention, the court reinforces the principle that such measures should be reserved for situations where there is clear evidence of an individual's intent to disrupt public order. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights against potential executive overreach.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court's ruling affirms that preventive detention cannot be employed solely based on an individual's involvement in a political rally that escalates into violence. The decision highlights the necessity for authorities to provide concrete evidence linking an individual to the organization or instigation of violence before resorting to such stringent measures. This judgment reinforces the protection of personal liberties and ensures that preventive detention is not misused as a tool to suppress political dissent.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community