A significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court has struck down the order of preventive detention, prioritizing personal liberty and upholding constitutional rights. In the case concerning public order, the Court has set a crucial precedent concerning the careful exercise of state power. This decision advocates for a cautious approach to preventive detention, ensuring that individual freedoms are protected. The judgment signifies a vital acknowledgment of the balance between state authority and personal liberty in cases affecting public order.
Analysis
- The detenue’s actions do not pose a threat to public order or societal harmony.
- Preventive detention should not be used as a means to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial.
- The detaining authorities and the state seem to have used preventive detention in a callous manner in this case.
- There is no evidence showing the detenue’s actions have become dangerous to public order.
- The order does not mention any application for bail cancellation by the State authorities.
- District Magistrate entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances.
- Detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 have been quashed by the Court due to incorrectly applying the standard for maintenance of public order and relying on stale materials.
- Preventive detention powers are exceptional and draconian and must not be an arbitrary exercise of state authority.
- Personal liberty cannot be sacrificed on the altar of preventive detention unless extremely necessary and affecting public order.
- Detention should not be a substitute for ordinary law and should involve due caution and proper appreciation of facts.
- State power to curb rights under criminal laws and preventive detention should be exercised with caution.
- Freedom of human beings is supreme and detentions should be made only when extremely necessary and affecting public order.
- Detention under Defence of India Rules must be apprehension and detention of a person likely to act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
- Distinction between disturbance to law and order and public order has been clearly settled by the Constitution Bench.
- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder; public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder.
- Simplicitor registration of FIR/s does not have a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.
- No relevant and cogent material exists for invoking the power under Section 3(1) of the Act.
- Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is highly sacrosanct and must be meticulously upheld.
- Detaining authority must ensure that the detention follows the established legal procedure.
- Article 22 is an exception to Article 21 and applies only in rare and exceptional cases.
Decision
- Present petition allowed
- Impugned order of detention dated 06.01.2024 quashed and set aside
- Petitioner detenue ordered to be set at liberty forthwith
- Rule made absolute to the extent mentioned
- Direct service permitted
Case Title: ASIF @ BHANJO S/O IMRAN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/2111/2024
