In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has rendered a historic decision in the case concerning the detention of Faisal @ Fesu Saiyad. This judgement sheds light on the necessity of preventive detention laws and their alignment with the maintenance of public order. Stay tuned to learn more about this groundbreaking ruling that upholds the principles of justice and civil liberties.
Facts
- The petitioner, Faisal @ Fesu Saiyad, was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, on 03.01.2024, labeling the petitioner as a ‘dangerous person’ according to the Act of 1985.
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order in the petition.
Issue
- After considering facts and submissions, the issue at hand is the legality of the detention order by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985.
- The order in question was executed on the applicant and is currently in effect.
Arguments
- The Detaining Authority passed the order to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Surat.
- The petitioner’s counsel argues that the grounds of detention do not relate to public order, but are a matter of law and order.
- The petitioner’s counsel states that the alleged offences do not impact public order as per the Act, but only relate to law and order.
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender and his activities affect society at large.
Analysis
- The offenses mentioned do not impact public order.
- Being a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless activities adversely affect public order.
- Detaining authority wrongly concluded the activities were ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’.
- Criminal cases mentioned do not affect public order.
- Granting of bail in all mentioned offenses.
- Allegations of beating by the petitioner and being in jail.
- Detaining authority failed to substantiate how the activities affect public order.
- Petitioner may be punished for offenses but they do not disrupt the community’s life.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act.
- Disturbance must affect public order to come under the scope of the Act.
- Assault or injury to specific persons may constitute disorder but not public disorder.
- Contravention of any law affects order, but to affect public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- A line of demarcation must be drawn between serious forms of disorder affecting the community and minor breaches primarily injuring specific individuals.
- Powers vested in executive authorities under ordinary criminal law are used for cases not disturbing public order.
- The offences alleged against the petitioner and the allegations made by witnesses did not create a sense of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area.
- There was no evidence to suggest that the activities of the petitioner posed a threat to public order.
- Therefore, the order of detention was not upheld as it was not based on valid grounds affecting public order.
Decision
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
- The order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
- The rule is made absolute accordingly.
Case Title: FAISAL @ FESU S/O MOINUDIN SAIYAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/906/2024
