In a recent judgment, the Gujarat High Court reviewed the detention order of Rupsing Damor, highlighting the distinction between law and order versus public order in the context of preventive detention laws. The court’s decision sheds light on the stringent requirements for justifying preventive detention based on the impact on public order. Stay informed with the legal analysis provided by the Gujarat High Court.
Issue
- Detaining Authority passed order based on antecedents and past activities of detenue
- Order aimed at preventing detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Surat
- Issue: Whether the detention order under Act of 1985 is legally sustainable
Arguments
- The petitioner, Rupsing S/o. Hemraj Damor, was preventively detained as a bootlegger under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detenue’s advocate argues that the grounds of detention do not pertain to public order but are related to law and order.
- The registration of the offense is considered to impact law and order, not public order, according to the advocate.
- The advocate contends that the detenue’s actions do not pose a threat to public order as per the Act of 1985.
- The petition challenges the legality and validity of the detention order.
- Arguments were presented by the detenue’s counsel and the learned AGP for the State.
- The detenue is considered a habitual offender by the learned State Counsel.
- The activities of the detenue have had a negative impact on society at large.
- These factors are being used as reasons to oppose the detenue’s application for release.
Analysis
- The authorities wrongly concluded that the detenue’s activities as a bootlegger were prejudicial to public order based on one prohibition case.
- The two mentioned offences by the detenue do not have any impact on public order maintenance.
- Although incidents of beating were alleged against the petitioner, they did not disrupt the community’s normal course of life.
- The detention grounds referenced a single criminal case under the Prohibition Act, which is insufficient to deem the detenue’s actions as affecting public order.
- Every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act.
- Disturbances that directly affect the community or injure public interest constitute public order and fall under the scope of the Act.
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- Cases of such nature are dealt with under ordinary criminal law by executive authorities.
- Contravention of any law affects order, but not necessarily public order.
- Incidents like quarrels and fights between individuals inside a house or in a street may constitute disorder but not public disorder.
- The petitioner cannot be preventively detained under the Act solely on the basis of being a bootlegger.
- Preventive detention can only be justified if the activities of the petitioner as a bootlegger adversely affect or are likely to affect the maintenance of public order.
- The alleged offences and witness allegations against the petitioner did not cause feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror in the public, which are necessary for a public order concern.
- The order of detention was not upheld as it was not supported by sufficient evidence of adverse impact on public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed illegal, invalid, and not in accordance with the law.
- The petition was allowed based on the findings mentioned.
Decision
- The order dated 03.01.2024 is quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty immediately, unless required in another case.
Case Title: RUPSING S/O HEMRAJ DAMOR THROUGH HEMRAJ MANIYA DAMOR Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT
Case Number: R/SCA/514/2024
