'Long Chain' Of Bureaucratic Approvals In Preventive Detention Needs Pruning: Bombay High Court To Maharashtra Govt

In a bid to ensure that there is no delay in processing the preventive detention orders, the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra Government to cut short the long chain of officers, through whom a proposal to detain an individual moves.

In the same case, reported by Live Law earlier today, the bench has held that a detention proposal made by a sponsoring authority without prior verification of the in-camera witness statements is materially defective and illegal and such a detention order cannot sustain in law.

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Ranjitsinha Bhonsale noted that in several such cases, the State Government is unable to defend the preventive detention action and/or Detention Orders on the ground of delay, which seems to be taking place at different and distinct stages of proposal, for different reasons and different durations.

In most cases there is no explanation or the explanation is not satisfactory, for which reason the detention order cannot be sustained and is set aside, the judges noted.

"We are of the opinion that it is the need of the hour for the State Authorities to take proactive steps to ensure that the process of approval of the Detention Order is firstly curtailed and then made more efficient in the terms of saving time, effort and resources. Prima facie we feel that there are too many officers in the chain of hierarchy of officers who check the proposal. The movement of the proposal from table after table seems to be unnecessary," the judges observed in an order passed on October 17, 2025 which was made available on January 21.

In the judgment, authored by Justice Bhonsale, it was noted that the proposal is mooted by the Sponsoring Authority, and submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), who verifies the in-camera Statements and the proposal and submits it to the zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), who then after checking the proposal submits to the DCP (Crime), who further forwards the proposal to the Senior Police Inspector of the Prevention of Crime Branch.

The papers along with the notings of the ACP, DCP etc are then forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), who checks the proposal and submits it to the Detaining Authority for consideration and approval and once the same is sanctioned, it is sent back to the Sponsoring Authority for making the required sets/photocopies, translations and compilations etc. it is, once again sent back, through the same chain to reach the Detaining Authority for approval and final orders., the judges further noted.

"We feel that the chain of officers/ hierarchy or process undertaken for approval is too long. The same should be curtailed to include only the Sponsoring Authority, the DCP (Crime) and ultimately the Detaining Authority. By doing so the responsibility will increase and the time taken to process the detention proposal will reduce," the judges said.

These are suggestions made for now, which if required may be incorporated as directions in appropriate matters at the appropriate time, the judges maintained.

The bench opined that the procedure which should be followed to ensure compliance of the procedural safeguards and requirement of law, are as under:

(i) The material for the detention proposal is collated, collected and compiled including the recording of the in-camera statement(s), which is done by the Sponsoring Authority;

(ii) Immediately, and in any event within 2 or 3 days, the ACP should be called upon by and to the Sponsoring Authority to verify the in-camera statements. This be done, when the ACP is acting as an Officer in his investigative capacity, and as an independent exercise of enquiry and investigation.

(iii) After the verification is completed, the ACP, should independently prepare a report addressed to the Detaining Authority. The report should contain, the in-camera statement, the verification thereof and make a mention of the process as carried out by the ACP, at the time of verification. A copy of the report, be given to the Sponsoring Authority to include with the proposal. The original report be sent by the office of ACP to the Detaining Authority. This be done on the same day. This is done to ensure that the Detaining Authority has sufficient time to see and analysis the Report, statements and verification independently and if required interact with the concerned ACP.

(iv) The ACP, after he verifies the in-camera statements cannot and should not have anything to do with the proposal or the detention process.

(v) The verification by the ACP, may be done by personally visiting the spot and interacting with the witnesses and persons in the neighborhood or in the alternative by having interactive sessions with the witnesses and or persons from the neighborhood at the office of the Sponsoring Authority.

(vi) The Sponsoring Authority shall within 48 hours the verification of the in-camera statement move the Detention proposal (in the required number of copies and along with the translation thereof in the language of known to the Detenue as required) along with the verified in- camera statement and other material complete in all aspects, including the required translations to the Senior Officer/DCP (Crime) for checking, approval and forward transmission.

(vii) On receipt of proposal, the Senior Officer/DCP (Crime) in its administrative capacity, will check the same and forward it to the Detaining Authority. This be done in 48 hours.

(viii) Once the proposal, reaches the Detaining Authority, the Detaining Authority shall personally goes through the entire proposal along with all the documents which are relied upon and form part of the detention proposal, including the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the in- camera statements, the verifications done by the Assistant Commissioner of Police etc. The queries if any be dealt with.

(ix) All of the aforesaid procedure should be done in an expeditious manner, and promptly and in any event within a period of at the most 5 to 7 days.

With these observations, the bench quashed the detention orders against Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad.

Appearances:

Advocates Ganesh Gupta, Sahil Ghorpade, Roshni Naaz, Surya Gupta, Madan Khansole, Priyanka Rathod and Tushar Gaikwad instructed by GG Legal Associates, appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Shreekant Gavand represented the State.

Case Title: Rushikesh @ Monya Shamrao Waghere vs Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad (Criminal Writ Petition 2291 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment