The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently delivered a landmark judgment, emphasizing that an individual’s participation in a political rally—even one that later turned violent—cannot justify preventive detention under stringent laws. The court ordered the immediate release of Nikhil Ranjwan, detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981, for his alleged involvement in violent protests during a Maratha Reservation agitation.
The division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi scrutinized the detention order against Ranjwan, who was accused of stone-pelting during a protest on October 30, 2023. While two FIRs named approximately 600–700 participants, only Ranjwan faced preventive detention. The court highlighted:
"There can be absolutely no justification for curtailing liberty of an individual merely on the ground of participation in a political rally, although the same may have taken an ugly violent turn."
Read Also - Supreme Court Appoints Retired Judge to Oversee Chandigarh Mayoral Elections on January 30 for Fair Process
The bench noted that Ranjwan’s actions, captured in CCTV footage, did not indicate instigation or leadership of the rally. He was neither found with explosives nor dangerous weapons, reducing his alleged role to spontaneous stone-pelting during the chaos.
Delay in Order Execution Breaches Constitutional Rights
A critical factor in quashing the detention was the 7-month, 10-day delay in serving the order. The court observed that this gap severed the "live link" between the incident and the detention, violating procedural safeguards under the MPDA Act. Authorities failed to follow Section 7 protocols for absconding individuals, weakening their justification for the delay.
"The inordinate delay disrupts the live link... resulting in a breach of the petitioner’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21."
Read Also - Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Action to Tackle Snakebite Crisis, Ensure Anti-Venom Access
Unequal Application of Law
The judgment underscored the discriminatory application of the MPDA Act. Despite 50 identified individuals in the FIRs, only Ranjwan faced detention. The court remarked:
"The petitioner has been singled out... such action has not been taken against others who participated in the protest."
This selective enforcement breached Article 14’s guarantee of equality before the law.
The court rejected the District Magistrate’s reliance on "subjective satisfaction," citing irrelevant material. The two FIRs from 2023 lacked severity—one involved a non-serious charge under IPC Section 324 (causing hurt with a weapon). The bench clarified:
"Material used for subjective satisfaction must be relevant. Here, it was extraneous and insufficient to justify preventive detention."
The Bombay HC’s ruling reinforces that preventive detention laws cannot be weaponized against political participation. By quashing the orders dated February 5, 2024, and November 7, 2024, the court reaffirmed that liberty can only be curtailed through due process.
Case Details:
Title: Nikhil Ranjwan vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 1931 of 2024)
Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocates A.R. Hange and R.G. Hange
State’s Counsel: Additional Public Prosecutor A.D. Wange
