In a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order pertaining to the impact on public order has been questioned. The ruling raises important considerations about the legal distinction between law and order versus public order. Learn more about the case and its implications on preventive detention laws.
Issue
- The Detaining Authority passed the order to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Ahmedabad.
- The issue at hand is whether the detention order under the Act of 1985 is legally sustainable.
- The key consideration is whether there is a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any related orders.
Arguments
- The petitioner’s counsel argues that the grounds of detention lack a connection to public order and are more related to law and order.
- Registration of the offense is seen as a matter of law and order, not affecting public order as per the Act of 1985.
- The offenses alleged do not pose a threat to public order but rather impact law and order.
- The detenue’s activities are considered prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order, not public order.
- The learned State Counsel opposing the application argued that the detenue is a habitual offender.
- The State Counsel contended that the detenue’s activities had a significant impact on society.
- The impugned order was executed on the applicant.
- The State Counsel stated that the detenue’s actions affected society at large.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the petitioner’s alleged anti-social activities affect or are likely to affect the maintenance of public order.
- Reference to three criminal cases in the grounds of detention, where the petitioner was granted bail in all of them.
- Subjective satisfaction of the authority based on these cases that the petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to public order is incorrect.
- Incidents of beating by the petitioner alleged, but deemed not relevant to public order maintenance.
- Mere status as a bootlegger does not justify preventive detention unless activities adversely affect public order.
- The expression ‘public order’ does not encompass every kind of infraction of order but only certain categories.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily lead to public disorder.
- Cases of quarrels, fights, and assaults between two people inside a house or on the street may constitute disorder but not public disorder.
- Such cases are typically dealt with under ordinary criminal law by executive authorities, and the individuals involved cannot be detained for disturbing public order.
- For an act to affect public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- A distinction has been made between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal.
- Serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly affecting the community or public interest are distinguished from relatively minor breaches of peace of local significance.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to a detention order is not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention laws.
- A disturbance that affects public order falls within the scope of preventive detention laws.
- Material on record insufficient to prove detenue’s activities affected public order
- Subjective satisfaction by detaining authority not legal or valid
- Offences alleged against detenue not deemed to create insecurity, panic, or terror among public
- Order of detention cannot be upheld
Decision
- The Rule has been made absolute in this case.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
- The petition is allowed.
Case Title: RAMBHAI @ KANO RANABHAI GAMARA THROUGH GOPALBHAI BHARATBHAI BHARVAD Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/205/2024
