Non-supply of vital documents like chemical analyzer’s report, relied upon by detaining authority, violates Article 22(5) right to effective representation, vitiating preventive detention order.

Judgment :

Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.

1. SUBJECT-MATTER : Claiming protection of his constitutional right under Article 21 r/w Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenges the detention order dated 27^th October 2025 imposed by the respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act).

2. Issues discussed :-

(i) ‘Detention Order’ and ‘effect of non-supply of document forming part of Detention Order and Grounds for Detention, to the detenu’.

(ii) What is “Vital” document of which, non service on detenu results into departure to Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally.

Facts in brief:

3. The proposal for detention of the petitioner was moved by the Inspector, State Excise, Kagal, Kolhapur vide communication dated 3^rd October 2025 that was addressed to the respondent No.2.

4. The report reveals that some in-camera Statement A and B were obtained on 8^th September 2025 and 9^th September 2025. The said documents as also other documents pertaining to the criminal antecedents of the Petitioner were attached to the proposal.

5. Consequently, the impugned detention order was passed by the respondent No.2 on 27^th October 2025. On 28^th October 2025, the petitioner was taken into the custody. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board approved the order of detention, and the matter was then referred to the State Government for confirmation. The State Government confirmed the detention order.

Petitioner’s arguments:

6. Mr. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner put-forth objection that the petitioner was not served with each and every document that was relied on by the authority while passing the detention order. He would submit that the very vital document i.e. a Chemical Analyzer’s Report (C.A. report) was never supplied to him.

7. He would submit that looking to the entire story raised by the prosecution on the respondents’ side, the CA report has vital role to play while bringing the detaining authority to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to be detained under the provisions of the Act.

8. MR. Suryavanshi, learned Counsel has produced on record set of documents that was supplied to him by the respondent authority. He would rely on the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Ranu Bhandari (2008) 17 SCC 348. He would also rely on another judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. 2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8510 of 2023).

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that referring to the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had right to effective representation against those documents. He would submit that since the petitioner was not supplied with all the vital documents, which brought the authority to the conclusion that an action was necessary to be taken against him for his detention, the detention order cannot be sustained for want of supply of such documents. As such, he prays to allow the