The Supreme Court of India, in a notable judgment, underscored the principle that preventive detention is an extreme and exceptional measure, applicable only when an individual’s actions pose a clear threat to public order. Quashing the detention of Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA), the Court ruled that routine breaches of law and order do not justify the deprivation of personal liberty through preventive detention.
Case Background
Arjun Gaikwad was detained by an order dated March 5, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate of Parbhani under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. The order cited Gaikwad’s alleged bootlegging activities, which were linked to six cases registered by the State Excise Department between January and October 2023. The detention was approved by the Maharashtra Home Department on March 14, 2024, and confirmed on May 8, 2024.
Gaikwad challenged the detention, arguing that there was no direct nexus between his alleged activities and a disturbance to public order. He also contended that the authorities acted mechanically and without sufficient evidence, making preventive detention an unjustifiable recourse.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing key legal issues:
1. Distinction Between Public Order and Law and Order:
The primary question was whether Gaikwad’s activities, which involved the illicit manufacture and sale of handmade liquor, amounted to a disturbance of public order or merely fell under the ambit of law and order.
2. Reliance on Vague Evidence:
The detaining authority had relied on six pending cases and statements from unnamed witnesses, which Gaikwad argued were vague and insufficient to substantiate the claim of a public order threat.
3. Timeliness of the Detention Order:
The Court examined the delay of two-and-a-half months between the initiation of the detention proposal and the issuance of the detention order, questioning whether this gap weakened the causal link between the alleged acts and the purported threat to public order.
Court’s Observations
A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan delivered the judgment. They emphasized that preventive detention is a harsh measure, permitted only under exceptional circumstances, and cannot be invoked for ordinary infractions of law. Citing landmark judgments, the Court reiterated:
– “Every breach of law and order does not escalate to a breach of public order. For preventive detention to be justified, the act must affect the community or public at large, not just individuals.”
– Referring to the precedent set in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, the Court explained the concentric circles of “law and order,” “public order,” and “security of the state.” It emphasized that public order involves acts that disrupt the “even tempo of the life of the community.”
– The Court also noted that Gaikwad was never arrested in the six pending cases, further undermining the justification for preventive detention. “Had he been arrested, released on bail, and continued his activities, the situation might have warranted harsher measures,” the Bench remarked.
Vagueness of Witness Statements
The detaining authority had relied on statements from two unnamed witnesses, who claimed Gaikwad created an atmosphere of fear and terror, forcing residents to abandon their homes. However, the Court found the statements to be stereotypical and lacking specificity. The allegations of threats made by Gaikwad were described as personal disputes that did not disturb the broader public order.
Judgment and Rationale
In a strongly worded verdict, the Court declared the detention order invalid and quashed the High Court’s dismissal of Gaikwad’s petition. The Bench held that the authorities failed to substantiate their claim that Gaikwad’s actions posed a threat to public order. Preventive detention, being an extraordinary measure, cannot be invoked in cases that the ordinary criminal justice system is competent to address.
The Court observed:
“Preventive detention is an extraordinary tool. It must be wielded with care and circumspection, and only when the acts in question disrupt the life of the community at large, not merely individual grievances or law and order disturbances.”
Parties and Representation
Appellant: Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad
Represented by Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi.
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra
Represented by Standing Counsel Siddharth Dharmadhikari.
