In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order dated 11.11.2023 under the PASA Act, finding it lacking in substantial evidence to prove impact on public order. The petitioner, detained as a ‘bootlegger,’ successfully challenged the order, leading to a crucial clarification on the distinction between law and order and public order. Learn about the court’s analysis and the implications of this decision on preventive detention in Gujarat.
Facts
- The petitioner has challenged the detention order under the PASA Act dated 11.11.2023
- The order was passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City
- The petitioner has been detained as a ‘bootlegger’
- The petitioner has prayed for release from detention
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the activities of the petitioner-detenue impact public order.
- The reliance on two cases under the Prohibition Act does not establish a disturbance affecting public order.
- The definition of ‘bootlegger’ in the PASA Act is considered in the context of the petitioner’s case.
- Section 3 of the PASA Act regarding the power to detain certain individuals is referenced in the analysis.
- The State Government has the power to make orders detaining certain persons if it is satisfied that the person’s actions are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
- District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police can also exercise these powers if directed by the State Government.
- Any order made must be reported to the State Government with grounds and other relevant details, and must be approved to remain in force beyond twelve days.
- Activities of individuals such as being a bootlegger, dangerous person, drug offender, or immoral traffic offender can be deemed prejudicial to public order.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was discussed in the case Pushker Mukherjee v/ s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852].
- According to the Supreme Court, ‘public order’ includes serious and aggravated forms of disorder that directly affect the community or injure the public interest.
- Minor breaches of peace with purely local significance that primarily injure specific individuals are not considered as affecting public order.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act.
- The contravention of any law affects order, but for it to affect public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- Not every act of assault or injury to specific persons leads to public disorder.
- The petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed, but the acts did not significantly impact the community’s daily life or public health.
- Being a ‘bootlegger’ does not automatically warrant preventive detention under the PASA Act unless it adversely affects or is likely to affect public order.
Decision
- The order of detention dated 11.11.2023 has been quashed.
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
- The petition has succeeded and is allowed.
- Rule is made absolute.
Case Title: MADHUSING DEVISING AMARSING RAJPUT SISODIYA Vs. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
Case Number: R/SCA/20145/2023
