In a recent legal judgment, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the detenue in a case challenging a detention order passed by the Detaining Authority. The court found that the alleged offenses did not amount to activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Stay tuned to learn more about this case and the implications of the High Court’s decision.
Arguments
- The State Counsel argued that the detenue is a habitual offender whose activities have a significant impact on society.
- The advocate for the detenue argued that the grounds of detention do not relate to public order, but rather to law and order.
- It was mentioned that the detenue’s alleged offenses did not affect or have the potential to affect public order, but rather pertained to law and order.
- The Detaining Authority passed the order to prevent the detenue from engaging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Ahmedabad.
- The key issue raised was whether the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is legally valid.
- The detention order has been executed, and the detenue is currently in jail.
Analysis
- The two offences mentioned do not impact public order.
- The detainee was involved in three criminal cases related to the Prohibition Act.
- The detainee was granted bail for the mentioned offenses.
- Witnesses alleged incidents of beating by the detainee.
- The authority wrongly concluded detainee’s activities as ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ based on the prohibition cases.
- Distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ as laid down in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal
- Not every act of assault or injury leads to public disorder
- Merely disturbing law and order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention Act
- To affect public order, an incident must impact the community or public at large
- Serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly affecting the community fall under public order
- Minor breaches of peace primarily injuring individuals do not necessarily impact public order
- Detaining authority in the instant case failed to prove that alleged anti-social activities affect maintenance of public order
- Quarrels and fights between individuals may constitute disorder but not public disorder
- The offenses alleged against the petitioner and the allegations made by witnesses did not create feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- The alleged activities of the detenue did not adversely affect or have the potential to affect the maintenance of public order.
- The material on record was insufficient to show that the detenue’s activities impacted public order negatively.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not legally valid as the detenue’s acts did not disrupt the community’s even tempo of life.
- Being a bootlegger alone was not sufficient grounds for preventive detention unless the activities as a bootlegger adversely affected public order.
Decision
- Petition allowed
- Impugned order dated 21.12.2023 quashed
- Direct service permitted
- Detenue to be set at liberty forthwith
Case Title: DILIPBHAI JAYANTIBHAI THAKOR THROUGH KAMLESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI THAKOR Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/297/2024
