In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order pertaining to the subversion of public order was quashed. The court’s decision underscored the significance of personal liberty and the careful application of preventive detention powers. This case marks a significant development in ensuring that preventive detention measures are not misused in cases affecting public order. #GujaratHighCourt #LegalCase #PublicOrder
Arguments
- Learned advocate argues that petitioner’s activities did not disturb the social fabric or public order.
- Detaining authority did not consider that petitioner is released on bail for all offenses.
- There is no evidence showing petitioner’s activities are a threat to public order.
- AGP supports detention order citing materials from investigation, but the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is questioned.
- The offenses alleged against the petitioner do not relate to public order as required by the Act.
- Other penal laws are enough to address the situation.
- Allegations against the petitioner are not relevant for Section 2(c) of the Act.
- Absence of material showing petitioner as a threat to society or public order.
Analysis
- Disturbances subverting public order are necessary for action under the Defence of India Act.
- Preventive detention law in Telangana was unjustly used according to recent court observations.
- The distinction between law and order and public order has been clarified by the Supreme Court.
- The courts emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need for caution in preventive detention cases.
- Multiple detention orders in Telangana were set aside due to improper exercising of preventive detention powers.
- Preventive detention should not be a substitute for ordinary law enforcement.
- The significance of Article 22 in preventing arbitrary use of preventive detention powers was highlighted.
- Acts affecting law and order may not necessarily affect public order.
- Quashed detention orders in Telangana for incorrectly applying public order maintenance standards.
- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder, highlighting the distinction between various levels of disturbance.
- A distinction between law and order and public order has been laid down by the Supreme Court.
- Preventive detention should only be used when necessary and as a last resort.
- The detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules is for preventing actions prejudicial to public order.
- Preventive detentions have colonial origins but are continued with strict constitutional safeguards.
- A District Magistrate can act to prevent subversion of public order but not to aid in maintenance of law and order under normal circumstances.
- Preventive detention is limited to a year and cannot be used to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial.
- Article 22 is an exception to Article 21 and applies only in rare and exceptional cases.
- The order in question did not mention any application for cancellation of bail by the State authorities.
- The case reflects a lack of consideration of relevant circumstances impacting the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.
- The two FIRs against the detenu could be addressed through ordinary criminal law procedures.
- The personal liberty protected under Article 21 is sacrosanct and of high constitutional value.
- Impugned detention must meticulously follow the procedure established by law.
- Simplicitor registration of FIRs does not signify breach of public order.
- No relevant material to invoke power under Section 3(1) of the Act.
- Detention order dated 20.01.2024 quashed and set aside.
Decision
- Rule made absolute to the extent specified.
- Petitioner – detenue ordered to be set at liberty immediately, unless needed in another case.
- Direct service allowed.
Case Title: REYAZKHAN @ RIYAZ @ VICKY S/O SUHEL @ SOHELKHAN THROUGH HIS MOTHER KHERUNNISA SUHEL PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/4093/2024
