In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 has been quashed, leading to a legal victory for the detenue. The order, aimed at preventing actions prejudicial to public order in Rajkot, was challenged successfully. This decision marks a crucial development in the case, emphasizing the importance of legal scrutiny in matters of preventive detention.
Facts
- The petitioner was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot, citing the petitioner as a ‘dangerous person’.
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order.
- The order execution was carried out on the petitioner.
Issue
- Detaining Authority passed the order based on detenue’s antecedents and past activities.
- Purpose of the order was to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Rajkot.
- The issue at hand is the legality and sustainability of the order of detention under the Act of 1985.
- Both parties have presented their submissions for consideration.
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention are related to law and order, not public order.
- The registration of the offence is not considered to have adversely affected public order as per the Act.
- The alleged offences do not impact the maintenance of public order but are only related to law and order.
- The detenue’s activities are seen as prejudicial to law and order, not public order.
- On the contrary, the State Counsel believes the detenue is a habitual offender whose actions affect society.
- ARG_RESPONDENT is currently in jail.
- ARG_RESPONDENT was found guilty of the crime.
- ARG_RESPONDENT’s sentence includes a jail term.
- ARG_RESPONDENT’s legal representative is advocating for an appeal.
Analysis
- The detaining authority did not provide enough evidence that the petitioner’s alleged anti-social activities threaten public order.
- Basing the subjective satisfaction on three criminal cases was deemed incorrect by the court.
- The grounds of detention mentioned three criminal cases, but the court found them inadequate to prove the detenue as a ‘dangerous person’ affecting public order.
- Although incidents of beating by the petitioner were acknowledged, they were deemed irrelevant to public order issues.
- The offenses the petitioner was involved in did not impact public order, as evident from the fact that bail was granted in all cases.
- The expression ‘public order’ distinguishes between serious and minor breaches of peace.
- Serious forms of disorder directly affecting the community or public interest fall under the scope of public order.
- A mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act.
- Contravention of any law affects order but to affect public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- The material on record is not sufficient to show that the detenue’s activities have affected or are likely to affect public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not legally valid.
- The alleged offenses by the petitioner do not disturb the even tempo of community life.
- Being a bootlegger alone does not warrant preventive detention unless it adversely affects public order as per the Act.
- The offenses and allegations against the petitioner do not cause insecurity or panic among the public, not impacting public order.
Decision
- The petition is allowed.
- The order dated 16.01.2024 is quashed.
- The detenue is to be set at liberty immediately if not required in any other case.
Case Title: ARYAN @ BONDO SALIMBHAI MAKRANI (BLOCH) Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/3465/2024
