In a recent landmark judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order issued against Govind @ Bhuro Jagdishbhai Nandkishor Jajoriya has been declared invalid. The court found that the grounds for detention did not adequately establish a connection to public order as required by law. This ruling sets an important precedent in ensuring that preventive detention measures are based on proper legal grounds. Follow this case for insights into the distinction between law and order versus public order in legal proceedings.
Facts
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order issued against him under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The petitioner, Govind @ Bhuro Jagdishbhai Nandkishor Jajoriya (Marvadi), was preventively detained on 04.01.2024 by the Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad.
- The petitioner is alleged to be a dangerous person as per Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985.
- The petitioner seeks to challenge the grounds on which his detention was ordered and questions the classification of him as a dangerous person.
- The legality and validity of the detention order are under scrutiny in this petition.
Issue
- Whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
- The order impugned has been executed on the petitioner resulting in his current incarceration in Jail.
Arguments
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the grounds of detention lack connection to ‘public order’ and pertain solely to ‘law and order’.
- The advocate asserts that the alleged offenses do not impact or have the potential to impact public order as defined under the Act, but rather relate to law and order issues.
- On the contrary, the State Counsel argues that the detenue is a repeat offender whose actions have negative implications on society.
- The State Counsel emphasizes that the detaining authority made the decision based on the detenue’s history and behavior.
Analysis
- The authority wrongly concluded that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order based on two criminal cases.
- The offences the detenue is accused of do not impact the even tempo of the community’s life.
- The detenue may be punished for the alleged offenses, but they do not affect public order.
- The reference to the two criminal cases does not justify categorizing the detenue as a ‘dangerous person’ affecting public order adversely.
- Detention order based on prohibition offences not sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Act
- Mere disturbance of law and order not enough, must affect public order for Preventive Detention Act
- Court distinguishes between law and order and public order – minor breaches of peace not impacting public order
- Incidents of beating by petitioner alleged, but do not impact maintenance of public order
- Judgment references the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal for clarity on law and order vs. public order
- The petitioner cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- It is crucial to establish that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act in order to take preventive detention measures.
- Being a bootlegger alone is not sufficient grounds for preventive detention under the Act.
- The material on record is not sufficient to establish that the alleged activities of the detenue have adversely affected public order.
- Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is deemed illegal and not in accordance with law.
- The alleged offences and accusations against the petitioner do not instill feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror in the public, hence not affecting public order.
Decision
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case
- The rule is made absolute accordingly
- Direct service is permitted
- The petition is allowed
- The order dated 04.01.2024 is quashed
Case Title: GOVIND @ BHURO JAGDISHBHAI NANDKISHOR JAJORIYA (MARWADI) THROUGH NITESHKUMAR RAMJIVAN KHATIK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY
Case Number: R/SCR.A/6491/2024
