A division bench of the Bombay High Court while quashing a detention order observed that the act of wielding a deadly weapon like a ‘koyta’ on a public road does not, by itself, amount to a disturbance of public order.

The detention order had been issued against a woman in Pune by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, who was the detaining authority. The order was passed under Section 3(2) of 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 Act).

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale, set aside the detention order.

Facts:

The material placed on record, including a Criminal Report and two in-camera statements, alleged that the petitioner was wielding a deadly weapon- namely a ‘koyta’-on a public road, attempting to extort money and threatening people.

While the counsel for the respondent contended that this conduct of the petitioner (detenue) was prejudicial to public order, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence did not suggest that the petitioner’s behaviour caused any disturbance to public order.

Additionally, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out delays on the part of the respondents in issuing the detention order, to the notice of the bench, highlighting that the detaining authority had offered no explanation for the two-month delay in issuing the order.

The counsel for the respondents refuted this claim, relying on the explanation given in the affidavit in reply. It stated that the time taken was due to scrutiny at different levels of authority, the completion of necessary administrative formalities, and that the respondents had acted promptly and in good faith.

Analysis and Judgement:

The bench agreed with the petitioner, observing that the evidence on record did not suggest that the detenue’s actions were “prejudicial to public order” or able to “disturb the even tempo of life”. Positing that the actions were “largely individualistic in nature”, the bench relied on various judgements to distinguish between public order and law and order; it held that the conduct of the detenue appeared to affect law and order and not the public order, stating that “in our opinion, the wrong doings/wrongful acts of the Detenue do not impact the society so to say adversely affecting the general public to instill a feeling of fear, panic or insecurity”.

Further, the bench opined that every breach of peace does not amount to disturbance of public order. It held that for an infraction of law to justify preventive detention, it must be of “such a nature that, if public order is disturbed, it must necessarily lead to public disorder”. Noting that the detenue’s actions in the present case did not disturb the general public to such an extent as to cause a disturbance in public tranquility, the judges held that in the present case, the “conduct and wrong doings attributed to the detenue cannot be termed as acts prejudicial to public order. The same are individualistic acts against certain persons which can be termed as a law and order issue and dealt with accordingly”.

Additionally, the judges examined the contention of delay and ruled in favour of the petitioner, holding that “the said period/delay of 67 days has not been explained or even attempted to be justified” and that “general and usual vague explanations given in a routine manner cannot be accepted as an explanation to justify inaction or delay”.

As a result, the bench quashed the detention order on account of delay and that the acts of the detenue could not be termed as prejudicial of public order.

Case Title: Nilofer Ramjan Shaikh vs Commissioner of Police, Pune City (Criminal Writ Petition No 3471 of 2025)

Appearance:

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Misbaah Solkar along with Ms. Faiza Gawandi, Nawaz Dordi i/by Mr. Amin Solkar Advocate

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand, APP