In a landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court has nullified the detention order imposed on Vipul Dadabhai Girase by the State of Gujarat. The court found that the grounds for detention did not meet the threshold required to establish a threat to public order. This ruling clarifies the distinction between law and order issues, setting a crucial precedent for future preventive detention cases in the state.
Facts
- The petitioner Vipul Dadabhai Girase was preventively detained as a bootlegger under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat.
- The petitioner’s petition was heard by the Court with learned counsel Mr. M.M. Barejia and Mr. LB Dabhi representing the State.
- The impugned order was executed on the petitioner, who is currently detained.
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 decision was made based on the detenue’s past activities and antecedents to prevent any threat to public order in Surat.
- Both parties have presented their arguments on the legality of the detention order.
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention do not relate to public order but are purely related to law and order.
- The registration of the offense did not adversely affect public order as per the provisions of the Act of 1985.
- The offenses attributed to the detenue only impact law and order, not public order.
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender whose activities have a broader impact on society.
Analysis
- The detention order was based on one prohibition case against the petitioner but this alone does not establish a threat to public order.
- Mere contravention of law does not necessarily constitute a threat to public order; it must affect the community at large.
- The authority failed to provide evidence that the petitioner’s actions were prejudicial to public order.
- The petitioner is currently in jail, which diminishes the immediate threat they may pose.
- Instances of violence involving the petitioner were reported, but these incidents alone may not be sufficient to establish a threat to 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.
- Serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly affecting the community or injuring public interest are necessary for action under the Act.
- Disturbances primarily injuring specific individuals with only a secondary impact on public interest do not warrant action under the Act.
- Detenue directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
- Petitioner may be punished for alleged offences but they did not affect the even tempo of community life.
- Mere status as a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless activities affect public order.
- Offences alleged against the petitioner did not create insecurity, panic, or terror in the public.
- Material on record insufficient to show detenue’s activities affect or are likely to affect public order.
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority found to be illegal, invalid, and not in accordance with the law.
- Petition allowed, order dated 30.12.2023 quashed.
- Specific incidents mentioned do not impact the maintenance of public order.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted
- Rule is made absolute accordingly
Case Title: VIPUL S/O. DADABHAI GIRASE THROUGH HIS MOTHER GIRASE ASHA W/O. DADABHAI Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Case Number: R/SCA/7648/2024
