In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, a legal battle ensued over the quashing of a detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. The case involved a dispute regarding public order being impacted by the alleged activities of the detenue. The court delved into the nuances of what constitutes disturbance to societal norms and the rule of law. Stay informed about the critical analysis of the Act in this landmark decision.
Arguments
- Petitioner’s advocate argues that the detention order should be quashed as the listed offenses do not bring the case within the Act’s definition.
- It is asserted that the alleged illegal activity does not impact public order but rather relates to law and order.
- The advocate highlights the lack of substantial evidence connecting the detenue’s actions to a breach of public order.
- The petition challenges the detention order issued under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.
- The advocate contends that the detenue’s activities did not disrupt societal norms or threaten the rule of law.
- Learned AGP supported the detention order and provided sufficient material and evidence found during investigation.
- Learned advocate cited a Supreme Court decision where even if one ground is fake, the detention order must be quashed.
- The detaining authority has passed the order of detention rightly as per Section 2(c) of the Act.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is deemed illegal and not in accordance with law.
- The alleged offenses in the FIRs do not impact public order as required by the Act.
- Other relevant penal laws are sufficient to address the situation.
- The detenue’s allegations are not relevant to section 2(c) of the Act.
- There must be material showing the detenue as a threat to society for them to fall under section 2(c) of the Act.
Analysis
- The Court distinguishes between serious and aggravated forms of disorder affecting the community and minor breaches of peace with local significance.
- Disturbance of law and order alone is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act; must affect public order.
- Petitioner was released on bail by a proper court, which had the option to cancel bail if necessary.
- Court refers to recent Supreme Court decision in Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors (2023) 9 SCC 633.
- Observations made by the Supreme Court emphasize that the State has other remedies available, such as seeking cancellation of bail or moving an appeal to a Higher Court.
- Lack of concrete evidence on record to prove that detenue is a threat to public order.
- In the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852], the Supreme Court discussed the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’.
- The Court clarified that not every act of assault or injury to specific persons constitutes a disturbance of public order.
- Incidents like quarrels and fights between individuals, even if they involve assaults, are considered disorder rather than public disorder.
- Such cases are typically handled by executive authorities using ordinary criminal law provisions, but the individuals involved cannot be detained on grounds of disturbing public order.
- For an act to be classified as affecting public order, it must impact the community or the public at large, not just specific individuals.
- Simplicitor registration of FIR does not indicate a breach of public order
- Authority cannot use preventive detention law without relevant and cogent material
- Preventive detention is not the proper remedy in this case
Decision
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The present petition is allowed.
- The impugned order of detention dated 11.11.2023 is quashed and set aside.
- The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Case Title: SAHIL DADA JAYESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/20697/2023
