While quashing the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act), the Bombay High Court (Kolhapur Bench) has asserted that three-month gap between recording of confidential statements and detention order, coupled with Detaining Authority’s failure to personally verify statements, snaps live and proximate link with alleged acts at highest constitute law and order, not public order.
The Court pointed out that the alleged acts of the Petitioner, even if accepted in their entirety, would at the highest constitute a “law and order” situation and not a “public order” problem within the meaning of the MPDA Act. The material on record failed to establish any disturbance of public order. The unexplained delay of approximately three months between the recording of the confidential statements and the passing of the detention order snapped the live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity for detention
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vrushali V. Joshi and Justice Sandesh D. Patil noted that the crime was registered on 28th March 2025, while the detention order was passed on 14th August 2025. Even if the date of recording the confidential statements i.e., 14th May 2025 is taken as the starting point, there remained an unexplained delay of approximately three months in passing the detention order. The Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the State offered no satisfactory explanation for this delay, which assumed particular significance given that the entire detention order rested on only one crime and two confidential statements.
The Court further found that the confidential statements were not personally verified by the Detaining Authority. The verification was carried out by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who is not the Detaining Authority. The mere recital in the detention order that the Detaining Authority had “gone through” the statements was held to be insufficient and the Detaining Authority is required to independently apply its mind and verify the statements before passing a detention order. Additionally, the contents of both confidential statements were found to be substantially identical, further weakening the evidentiary foundation.
On the critical distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” the Court referred to the Apex Court’s judgment in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar [1965 SCC OnLine sc 9], which laid down the concentric circles test, i.e., law and order being the largest circle, public order the next, and security of the State the smallest. The test is whether the even tempo of community life has been disturbed, thereby affecting public order, or whether the alleged offence is confined to a particular individual, resulting only in a law-and-order situation. Applying this test, the Court found that the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority disclosed no act or conduct that disturbed the even tempo of community life or affected the public at large. There was no evidence of widespread disturbance, panic, disruption of normal life, or any other circumstance that would bring the alleged acts within the ambit of “public order.”
The Court also observed that the unexplained delay of approximately three months between the recording of the confidential statements and the passing of the detention order had snapped the live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the necessity to detain the Petitioner. This delay, coupled with the absence of any satisfactory explanation, rendered the detention order unsustainable.
Briefly, the Petitioner, a 25-year-old resident of Mundhvi, Taluka Mangalwedha, District Solapur, challenged the order of detention dated 14th August 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Solapur, under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detention order was based on one crime arising out of an incident dated 28th March 2025 and two confidential statements recorded on 14th May 2025. The State opposed the petition, branding the Petitioner as a “Sand Mafia” with multiple offences registered against him, and asserted that witnesses refrained from lodging complaints out of fear, with their identities protected on assurance of confidentiality.
