In a significant legal victory, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order of ARG_RESPONDENT in a case challenging the legality of the order. The Court’s decision marks a crucial moment in upholding rights and justice. Stay updated on this case and the implications of the judgment. #LegalCase #GujaratHighCourt #DetentionOrder
Facts
- The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Police Commissioner, Morbi.
- The petitioner was preventively detained as a ‘dangerous person’ under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The petitioner has filed this petition to contest the execution of the detention order.
- The petitioner seeks to establish the illegality and invalidity of the detention order through this petition.
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is legally valid.
- The Detaining Authority passed the order based on the detenue’s antecedents and past activities to prevent him from acting to maintain public order in Morbi.
- Both parties have presented their arguments and now the question is whether the Detaining Authority’s decision is lawful.
Arguments
- The registration of the offence does not impact the maintenance of public order as per the Act, 1985.
- The alleged offences do not relate to the maintenance of public order but only to law and order.
- The detenue’s actions are not prejudicial to public order but only to law and order.
- The detenue’s activities do not have a direct nexus to public order.
- ARG_RESPONDENT has been found guilty of the charges and has been sentenced to jail time.
- ARG_RESPONDENT has the right to appeal the judgment within a specified timeframe.
- The court has given ARG_RESPONDENT the opportunity to present any additional evidence or arguments in their defense.
- ARG_RESPONDENT will be held in jail pending the outcome of any appeals.
- The judgment specifies the duration of the jail sentence for ARG_RESPONDENT.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- The detenue was labeled as a ‘dangerous person’ based on three criminal cases, but these activities do not influence public order.
- Incidents of beating were reported, leading to three criminal cases, but these offenses do not impact the maintenance of public order.
- Despite being a bootlegger, the petitioner cannot be preventively detained unless his activities as a bootlegger affect public order.
- The offenses for which the petitioner was arrested and granted bail do not disturb the even tempo of community life.
- The expression ‘public order’ does not encompass every type of infraction of order, but only certain categories.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily lead to public disorder.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was clearly laid down in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act.
- A disturbance must affect the community or the public at large to be considered as affecting public order.
- Serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly affecting the community or injuring public interest are distinguished from minor breaches of peace with only local significance and primarily injuring specific individuals.
- The alleged offences and activities of the petitioner did not create feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- There is no evidence to suggest that the actions of the detainee have adversely impacted public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is deemed illegal and invalid due to insufficient evidence on record.
Decision
- The order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the authority has been quashed.
- The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- The petition stands allowed.
Case Title: GAUTAMBHAI JAYANTIBHAI MAKVANA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Case Number: R/SCR.A/6453/2024
