In a recent ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order in the case involving Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad has been quashed. The court found that the grounds of detention were related to law and order rather than public order. This decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between law and order and public order in preventive detention cases. Stay informed on this legal development! #LegalUpdate #GujaratHighCourt
Issue
- The issue at hand is the sustainability in law of the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985.
- The facts and submissions of both parties have been carefully considered in relation to this issue.
- Key question is whether the order of detention is legally justifiable.
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention are related to law and order rather than public order.
- The registration of the offense is not indicated to have adversely affected public order as per the Act.
- The offenses allegedly committed do not impact the maintenance of public order, but rather law and order.
- The detenue’s activities are considered prejudicial only to law and order, not public order.
- Detaining Authority passed the impugned order to prevent the detenue from acting prejudicial to public order in Morbi.
- Detenue has antecedents and past activities warranting such an order.
- Detenue is considered a habitual offender whose activities have negatively impacted society at large.
- State Counsel opposed the application, stating the detenue’s history and impact on society.
Analysis
- The order of detention was executed upon the applicant who is currently in jail.
- Incidents of beating by the petitioner were alleged but they did not disturb public order.
- The petitioner may be punished for alleged offenses but they do not impact public order.
- The petitioner being a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless activities affect public order.
- References to criminal cases against the applicant were for various offenses but bail was granted in all cases.
- The authority wrongly concluded that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to public order based on the three criminal cases.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for preventive detention; a higher level affecting public order is required.
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the petitioner’s alleged activities affect public order negatively.
- The offenses committed do not impact the maintenance of public order.
- A distinction must be made between serious public disorder and minor breaches that affect specific individuals more than public interest.
- In the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, the detention order was made based on the registration of two prohibition offenses.
- The Apex Court referred to the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10 and held that mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention Act.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was clearly laid down in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal.
- Any contravention of a law affects order, but to impact public order, it must affect the community or public at large.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily lead to public disorder.
- The offences alleged and the allegations made against the petitioner did not create feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- There is no evidence to suggest that the activities of the petitioner have adversely impacted public order or are likely to do so in the future.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not considered legal, valid, or in accordance with the law due to lack of sufficient evidence on record.
Decision
- Order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
- Direct service permitted.
- Rule is made absolute accordingly.
- Detenue to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
- Petition stands allowed.
Case Title: AJAYBHAI JAGDISHBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Case Number: R/SCA/1912/2024
