Bombay High Court reprimands Pune top cop over delayed response to plea
As per procedure, the detaining authority is supposed to file its submission before the government takes a decision. However, Rashmi Shukla, commissioner of police, Pune, is said to have taken 16 days in filing her reply.
Pune Police Commissioner Rashmi Shukla
THE BOMBAY High Court, in its recent order, stated that it was surprised at the “high-handed” behaviour of the Pune Commissioner of Police in responding to the plea of a man who was taken into preventive detention for alleged
bootlegging.
Under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, the local police can undertake preventive detention of slumlords, bootleggers and drug offenders, to prevent their dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order for a year.
Anil Vitkar, a resident of Pune, had filed a petition before the Bombay High Court, stating that his brother-in-law Ganesh Mane was detained by Rashmi Shukla, commissioner of police, Pune, under the MPDA Act.
The detention order was served to Mane on September 8, 2017. Mane was detained in Nashik Road Central Jail on the grounds of his criminal record. Police record reflected that Mane had been indulging into “trade of illicit liquor, endangering human lives and ruining poor families”. He was also declared as a “habitual offender”.
Later, Mane challenged the order and made a representation to the Home Department. As per procedure, the detaining authority is supposed to file its submission before the government takes a decision. However, Shukla is said to have taken 16 days in filing her reply.
A division bench of Justice S C Dharamadhikari and Justice Bharati Dangre, coming down heavily on Shukla, observed, “She offers no explanation for the period consumed between 27.11.2017 and 11.12.2017. On the contrary, she made a bold statement that there is no delay on her part. We are surprised by such an attitude of a high-ranking officer who is authorised by the state government to pass the order of detention and to deal with the liberty of an individual and expected to be conscious of the drastic consequence of preventive detention.”
Stating that the law was drastic as it authorises detention of an individual, the bench added that the detaining authority had “acted callously and in a slipshod manner” and was “unmindful of the fact that she is depriving a citizen of his valuable right of having his representation being considered with utmost expendency.”
“The state cannot act in an arbitrary fashion or with callousness since the state itself is responsible for safeguarding fundamental rights of a citizen. But we would like to remind the authorities that they should avoid callousness or lethargy, and all those involved in the process should garner themselves to protect the most cherished value of the constitution — freedom of an individual,” it said.
The court also noted that Shukla had attempted to offer an explanation by stating that there were holidays in between. To this, the court observed, “However, we do not expect from the highest police officer of a city to count the holidays, which intermitted in the working days, and to have a shelter of holidays when whole 11 working days were available to the detaining authority.”
Passing an order that Mane be set free, the court castigated the state for “failing to safeguard rights of detainees”.
“We are of the clear opinion that the delay caused at the level of the detaining authority, resultantly delay caused in deciding the representation by the state government, is fatal and the state has failed to safeguard precious right of the detenu in the form of his freedom and liberty,” it added.
Share
