In a significant ruling, Gujarat High Court addresses the misuse of preventive detention powers in the case of preventive detention law. The Court’s decision sheds light on the strict constitutional safeguards in place to prevent abuse of such powers. This judgement reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding legal standards in cases involving the detention of individuals under preventive laws.
Arguments
- The impugned order of detention is challenged on the grounds that it was solely based on the registration of one FIR for specific offenses.
- The offenses listed in the FIR do not automatically bring the petitioner within the definition under Section 2(b) of the Act.
- The alleged illegal activities lack a nexus with the maintenance of public order and are more of a breach of law and order.
- Apart from statements of witnesses and the FIR, there is no other substantial evidence linking the petitioner’s activities to a breach of public order.
- The petitioner’s actions in relation to the criminal case do not seem to have significantly disturbed the social fabric or posed a threat to the existence of normal social life.
- There is insufficient basis to conclude that the petitioner’s activities have caused a disorder in the social apparatus, disrupting the public order.
- The detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction is found to be not legal, valid, and in accordance with the law.
- The alleged offenses in the FIR do not relate to public order as required under the Act.
- Other relevant penal laws are deemed sufficient to address the situation involving the petitioner.
- The allegations against the detenue are not relevant to bring them under Section 2(b) of the Act.
- There is a lack of material indicating the detenue poses a threat to public order or society.
- The detenue does not fall within the category under Section 2(b) of the Act.
- The State has remedies available if the detenue is indeed a menace to society, such as seeking bail cancellation or appealing to a Higher Court.
Analysis
- The proper remedy for the case is not seeking shelter under the preventive detention law.
- Recent court decision observed routine and unjustified use of Preventive Detention Law in Telangana.
- The Court disapproved of the indiscriminate use of preventive detention in the state.
- Distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ has been clearly settled by various cases cited in the judgement.
- Preventive detention powers are exceptional and with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse.
- The case highlighted shows non-application of mind by the detaining authority and the misuse of preventive detention powers.
- The powers of preventive detention trace back to the colonial era and have been continued with safeguards to prevent abuse.
- Several detention orders have been quashed in the past for incorrectly applying the standard for maintenance of public order.
- The nature of the allegations against the detenu is severe and has resulted in quashing of multiple detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986.
- The Supreme Court has directed the respondents to evaluate the fairness of detention orders against lawful standards.
- The Apex Court has clarified the distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ in various cases cited in the judgement.
Decision
- The petitioner, who is the detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
- The rule is made absolute to the aforementioned extent.
- Direct service is permitted for the same.
Case Title: SADDAMHUSEN NIYAZBHAI KHAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Case Number: R/SCA/1510/2024
