Topic
Under Indian law, a 'dangerous person' refers to someone detained preventively under laws like the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (MPDA) for posing a threat to public order, not for past crimes alone.
Bombay High Court sets aside a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act, ruling that isolated criminal acts against individuals do not automatically threaten public order. The judgment mandates concrete evidence linking the detenu’s conduct to broader societal harm, reinforcing Article 22 safeguards against arbitrary detention.
The Bombay High Court quashed a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act, holding that mere registration of unrelated criminal cases does not establish a detainee as a 'dangerous person.' The ruling reinforces that preventive detention requires concrete, proximate evidence of imminent threat to public order, not speculative or distant allegations. This sets a critical safeguard against arbitrary detention under broad statutory powers.
Bombay High Court upholds preventive detention under MPDA Act for repeat offender with pattern of theft and grievous hurt, affirming public order threshold for detention.
Bombay High Court quashes preventive detention order for lack of proximate link between alleged offences and public order threat under MPDA Act, 1981.
Bombay High Court quashes preventive detention order for lacking proximate link to public order and ignoring bail conditions under MPDA Act. Key precedent on Section 2(b-1) interpretation.
Bombay High Court quashes preventive detention order, holding that isolated individual offences do not constitute threat to public order under MPDA Act.