In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench has stated that preventive detention of a person solely for participating in a political rally that turned violent is a violation of fundamental rights. The court emphasized that an individual’s liberty cannot be curtailed on such grounds.
Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi quashed the preventive detention orders issued by a magistrate court and the state government against 20-year-old student Nikhil Ranjwan. These orders were initially based on two FIRs related to his participation in a 2023 rally advocating for Maratha reservation, which subsequently turned violent.
The division bench highlighted that the rally involved over 600 participants, with the police identifying 50 individuals. However, it pointed out that using these two FIRs to justify preventive detention was a “drastic action” and stressed that there was no evidence suggesting Ranjwan organized the rally or agitation.
“It appears that the petitioner was part of a political rally which took an ugly violent turn,” the bench noted, acknowledging the possibility that Ranjwan might have committed some wrongful acts in the heat of the moment. Nonetheless, they maintained that such actions do not warrant the drastic measure of curtailing his liberty through preventive detention.
The court also criticized the procedural handling of Ranjwan’s detention, noting that the actions taken violated his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution because they were not in strict accordance with established legal procedures.
Nikhil Ranjwan had challenged the legality of his detention orders issued in February and November 2024 by the Beed district magistrate and the state government, respectively. Following these orders, Ranjwan was placed in Harsul Jail, Aurangabad.
The government had defended the detention by alleging that Ranjwan engaged in stone-pelting during the protest. However, the high court’s ruling underscores the principle that participation in a political rally, even if it turns violent, does not by itself justify preventive detention without clear evidence of direct involvement in unlawful activities.
