Prior Verification Of In-Camera Witness Statements Mandatory Under Dangerous Activities Act; Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order As Illegal
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale set aside a preventive detention order after finding that the proposal placed before the detaining authority was not complete when it left the sponsoring authority. The Court, noting that preventive detention operates as punishment without a trial, held that in-camera witness statements—often forming the basis of such action—must be verified before the proposal is forwarded. It observed that the Assistant Commissioner of Police performs two distinct functions: administratively scrutinising and transmitting the proposal, and investigatively verifying the in-camera statements for genuineness. Since verification was undertaken only after the proposal was moved, the detention was held unsustainable, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
The petition was instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981. The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, and was lodged in Yerwada Central Prison. The detention was founded on material placed by the sponsoring authority, including two in-camera statements of witnesses recorded in December 2024.
The petitioner contended that the detention proposal was procedurally defective as it was forwarded by the sponsoring authority to the Assistant Commissioner of Police prior to verification of the in-camera statements by a superior officer. It was pointed out that although the statements were recorded earlier, their verification was undertaken after the proposal had already been submitted, rendering the proposal incomplete at the stage it left the hands of the sponsoring authority.
The State opposed the petition, asserting that the Assistant Commissioner of Police performs a dual role of verifying in-camera statements and administratively scrutinizing detention proposals, and that such verification could validly occur after receipt of the proposal. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions to contend that the procedure followed did not vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The Court examined the scheme of preventive detention and reiterated that “strict compliance with the letter of the procedural safeguards is the essence of the matter”. It noted that preventive detention operates as a “jurisdiction of suspicion” and that the only real protection available to a detenue lies in scrupulous adherence to procedural requirements.
The Bench recorded that “verification of the in-camera statements is one of the most important procedural safeguards which has evolved over a period of time” and that such verification is intended to ensure the genuineness, correctness, and truthfulness of the material relied upon. It observed that “an unverified in-camera statement would mean that one of the important materials was not tested for its reliability when the proposal left the hands of the sponsoring authority”.
Rejecting the State’s contention of post-proposal verification, the Court stated that “verification of in-camera statements is an investigative exercise and cannot be undertaken as a ‘by the way’ administrative task”. It further recorded that “the scope and purpose of verification and administrative checking are distinct and materially different”.
The Bench agreed with an earlier coordinate Bench view that “unless and until the in-camera statements are verified by the higher authority, the proposal for detention could not have been moved”. It held that forwarding a proposal without prior verification constituted a material illegality, observing that “a proposal moving out from the hands of the sponsoring authority without verification is incomplete and unsustainable”. The Court concluded that such a defect strikes at the foundation of the detention order and cannot be cured at a later stage.
The Court ordered that “the Detention Order dated 26th February, 2025 bearing No. Conf. OW.No./PCB/DET/41/2025, Pimpri-Chinchwad, issued by Respondent No.1, is quashed and set aside. The Petitioner/Detenue be released from Jail forthwith, if not required in any other case/cases, on production of an authenticated copy of the operative part of the present Judgment. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a)” and that “Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. All concerned shall act on the basis of an authenticated copy of the operative part of this Judgment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Gupta, Advocate, with Mr. Sahil Ghorpade, Ms. Roshni Naaz, Mr. Surya P. Gupta, Mr. Madan Khansole, Ms. Priyanka Rathod, and Mr. Tushar Gaikwad.
For the Respondents: Shri Shreekant V. Gavand, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere v. Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:58159-DB
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2291 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. S. Gadkari, Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
