A landmark ruling by the Gujarat High Court on the detention order issued under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The case involved a petitioner challenging the legality of the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority in relation to activities alleged to be prejudicial to public order in Amreli. The judgment emphasized the crucial difference between disturbances affecting law and order versus those impacting public order. Stay tuned to learn more about this significant legal development.
Facts
- The petitioner was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detention order was issued on 05.01.2024 by the Police Commissioner, Amreli.
- The petitioner was detained as a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1985.
Issue
- The issue at hand is the sustainability of the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985.
- Both parties have presented their submissions and arguments to be considered in this matter.
Arguments
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order.
- The petitioner is questioning the legality of the aforesaid order.
- The petitioner is seeking to establish the invalidity of the order.
- Detaining Authority passed the impugned order to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Amreli.
- State counsel argued that the detenue is a habitual offender whose activities have negatively impacted society.
- Detenue’s advocate contends that the grounds of detention are related to law and order, not public order.
- Detenue’s activities are seen as prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order, not public order.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the petitioner’s alleged anti-social activities affect or are likely to affect public order.
- References to four criminal cases under the Prohibition Law were made in the grounds of detention.
- The petitioner was granted bail in the mentioned offenses.
- The authority wrongly concluded the petitioner’s activities as ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ based on the prohibition cases.
- Merely being a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless it affects public order.
- The offenses committed by the petitioner did not disrupt the community’s life or public order.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention act.
- A line of demarcation should be drawn between serious forms of disorder directly affecting the community or public interest and minor breaches of peace of purely local significance.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily lead to public disorder; they are dealt with under ordinary criminal law.
- Contravention of any law affects order, but to affect public order, it must impact the community or public at large.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was made clear in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal.
- When there is a quarrel or fight between two people, it may constitute disorder but not public disorder.
- Detention orders should be based on disturbances that will affect public order, not just any disturbance of law and order.
- The material on record is not sufficient to show that the detenue’s alleged activities have adversely affected or are likely to adversely affect public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be considered legal, valid, or in accordance with the law.
- The alleged offences or allegations against the detenue have not caused feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area in question, thus not impacting public order.
- The order of detention is not upheld as it does not pertain to maintenance of public order.
Decision
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- The order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
Case Title: MULSHANKAR MANISHANKAR TERAIYA THROUGH DIPAKBHAI MANISHANKARBHAI TERAIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1668/2024
