In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act in the case of State v. Detenue. The court examined the necessity of demonstrating a serious threat to public order for invoking preventive detention measures. The judgment sheds light on the careful application of preventive detention laws in maintaining societal harmony and order.
Facts
- The present petition challenges the order of detention dated 01.11.2023 passed by the detaining authority under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detention is exercised under Section 3(1) of the Act against the petitioner, who is defined as the detenue under Section 2(b) of the Act.
Arguments
- The impugned order of detention is challenged as it was solely based on the registration of six FIRs under various sections of the Prohibition Act.
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the registration of FIRs alone does not constitute a breach of public order as defined in the Act.
- There is a lack of additional evidence apart from witness statements and FIR registration to demonstrate that the petitioner’s activities posed a threat to public order.
- The advocate asserts that the petitioner’s actions did not disturb the social fabric to the extent of threatening the normal routine of society.
- It is contended that the criminal cases against the petitioner do not amount to a breach of public order under the Act.
- State supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority
- Sufficient materials and evidences were found during the investigation
- Materials supplied to the petitioner – detenue indicate habitual activities defined under Section 2(b) of the Act
- Detaining authority’s order of detention deserves to be upheld
- Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority found to be not legal or valid as the alleged offenses in the FIR do not relate to public order
- Relevant penal laws are considered sufficient to address the situation
- Allegations against the petitioner – detenue do not align with the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act
- No material to indicate petitioner – detenue is a threat to society impacting public order
- General statements without specific material on record against the detenue’s actions
- Case laws cited by the Apex Court highlighting the legal position in similar cases
Analysis
- Every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder.
- Distinctions between disturbance to law and order and public order must be made.
- Detention under preventive laws must be based on affecting public order, not just law and order.
- The use of preventive detention laws must be fair and justified, not routine or unjustified.
- The powers of preventive detention are exceptional and should not be used arbitrarily.
- Seeking shelter under preventive detention law not the proper remedy in this case
- Non-application of mind to material circumstances by detaining authority
- Two FIRs against detenu can be dealt with through ordinary criminal law
Decision
- Direct service permitted, petitioner ordered to be set at liberty if not required in any other case
- Rule made absolute to the extent mentioned
- Simplicitor registration of FIR does not indicate breach of maintenance of public order
- No relevant material exists for invoking power under Section 3(1) of the Act
- Petition allowed, impugned order of detention quashed and set aside
Case Title: YUVRAJSINH VAJUBHA JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1333/2024
