In a recent ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, has been quashed due to the lack of impact on public order. The case delves into the crucial distinction between disturbances affecting public order and minor breaches of peace. Stay informed on this case involving the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, and its implications on preventive detention laws.
Facts
- The petitioner detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City under the PASA Act.
- The petitioner has prayed for quashing the said detention order and seeking his immediate release.
- The challenge is based on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights and lack of sufficient material to justify the detention.
- The petitioner contended that the order was passed mala fide and without application of mind.
- The Court will examine the legality and validity of the detention order in light of the arguments presented by both parties.
Issue
- The main issue in this case pertains to the interpretation of Article [insert Article number] of the Constitution of India.
- The parties involved have presented differing views on the interpretation of this particular constitutional provision.
- The Court needs to determine whether the actions of the parties are in line with the constitutional provisions and if any clarifications or modifications are required.
Arguments
- Petitioner has been released on bail in connection with all FIRs mentioned.
- Detained on the ground of five FIRs related to theft.
- Petitioner’s activities may cause disturbance to law and order, not breach of public order.
- Learned advocate argued that instead of detention, bail cancellation could have been considered.
- The petitioner was released on bail before the detention order was passed, undermining the satisfaction of the detaining authority.
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the detenue’s activities affect public order.
- Citing the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal, the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was highlighted.
Analysis
- Contravention of any law affects order but must affect the community or the public at large to be considered as disturbing public order.
- Subjective satisfaction in invoking preventive detention can be vitiated as per recent Supreme Court decision in Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors.
- State has alternative remedies such as seeking cancellation of bail or moving an appeal to Higher Court if the individual is a menace to society.
- Authority cannot resort to preventive detention if no relevant material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act.
- Simply registering FIRs does not necessarily relate to breach of public order.
- Assault or injury to specific persons does not always lead to public disorder.
- Quarrels and fights between individuals may indicate disorder but not public disorder.
- Drawing a line between serious forms of disorder and minor breaches of peace
- Serious forms of disorder directly affecting the community or public interest fall under Preventive Detention Act
- Minor breaches of peace primarily affecting specific individuals are dealt with under ordinary criminal law
- Preventive Detention Act requires disturbances that affect public order for action
- Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is necessary before passing a detention order
- Impugned detention order was passed after a delay of more than 2½ months from the petitioner’s release on bail
- Lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail was available but not resorted to
- Order of detention was passed instead of cancelling bail
Decision
- Direct service is permitted.
- Detention to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- Rule is made absolute.
- Impugned order of detention stands vitiated.
- Order of detention dated 22.11.2023 quashed and set aside.
- Detenue is ordered to be released.
Case Title: VINUBHAI @VINO DEVABHAI KHINT (BHARWAD) THRO LALJIBHAI DEVABHAI KHINT(BHARWAD) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RAJKOT
Case Number: R/SCA/20962/2023
