This is an archive article published on June 16, 2023
HC raps Daman & Diu for ‘casual detention orders’, asks it to pay Rs 20k each to 3 detainees
The court made the observations while quashing a detention order against a petitioner, who is a lawyer. The court quashed three orders of November 2022 passed by the magistrate placing three persons under preventive detention.
The petitions were filed by advocate Vishal Shrimali challenging a detention order passed against him and another plea by one Sangeeta Rathod challenging the detention orders passed against her son and husband.
The Bombay High Court, while pulling up the district magistrate of Dadra and Nagar Haveli for passing detention orders in a ‘casual and mechanical manner’ without application of mind, recently said that “with great power comes great responsibility”. The court further directed the Union Territory of Daman and Diu to pay a cost of Rs 20,000 to each detainee within four weeks and asked the authorities to conduct a workshop for officers dealing with detention laws.
The court made the observations while quashing a detention order against a petitioner, who is a lawyer. The court quashed three orders of November 2022 passed by the magistrate placing three persons under preventive detention.
Advertisement
A division bench of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere and Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh passed the verdict on pleas seeking quashing of orders by the district magistrate of Dadra and Nagar Haveli under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act.
“With great power comes great responsibility. Thus, greater the power, greater the responsibility. Whilst authorising detention, it is the bounden duty of the authority to act responsibly and with circumspection and in accordance with law, since under the detention law, a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty. We find that the detention orders have been passed mechanically and casually, contrary to law,” the bench observed.
“The detenues were required to remain in custody pursuant to the detention orders, in the absence of any material being produced before the authority. It is nothing but travesty of justice,” the court observed.
Advertisement
The petitions were filed by advocate Vishal Shrimali challenging a detention order passed against him and another plea by one Sangeeta Rathod challenging the detention orders passed against her son and husband.
The petitioners through advocates Ashok Mishra and Manoj Badgujar claimed that their clients were social activists who had raised their voice against alleged illegal activities by the marble industry owners, essentially against environmental laws. As a result of which false cases were lodged against them and detention orders were passed subsequently, the pleas claimed.
The petitions were filed by advocate Vishal Shrimali challenging a detention order passed against him and another plea by one Sangeeta Rathod challenging the detention orders passed against her son and husband.
Share
