In a landmark decision, the Gujarat High Court has ruled on the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, addressing the legality of a detention order. The court deliberated on the impact of the alleged activities on public order in Vadodara. Stay tuned to delve deeper into the nuances of this significant legal challenge. #DetentionOrder #LegalCase
Facts
- The detainee has a right to make a representation against the detention order.
- The authority must consider the representation and all relevant materials before confirming the detention.
- If the representation is rejected, the detainee must be informed about the rejection along with grounds.
- Failure to consider the representation may render the detention illegal.
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority is legal
- The Detaining Authority took into consideration the detenue’s antecedents and past activities
- The order aims to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Vadodara
- Both parties presented their submissions for consideration
- The key question is the legality of the detention order under the provisions of the Act of 1985
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that the registration of the offence does not pertain to the maintenance of public order as defined under the Act.
- The alleged offences by the detenue are stated to only impact law and order, not public order.
- The State Counsel counters by labeling the detenue as a habitual offender whose actions have a wider negative impact on society.
- The detenue’s advocate emphasizes the lack of connection between the grounds of detention and public order.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the petitioner’s alleged anti-social activities significantly impact public order.
- There must be a distinction between serious disruptions affecting the community as a whole and minor disturbances of peace.
- Reference to criminal cases against the petitioner was made, but bail was granted in all instances.
- The activities of the petitioner do not seem to have a direct impact on public order.
- Citing the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the court emphasized that mere disturbance of law and order is not enough for preventive detention.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was discussed, highlighting that every act of assault does not lead to public disorder.
- The court considered the offences alleged against the petitioner and the allegations made by witnesses.
- The offences or allegations did not create a feeling of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area.
- The court concluded that the alleged activities of the detenue did not adversely affect or likely to affect the maintenance of public order.
- The material on record was found insufficient to support the contention that public order was compromised.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed not legal, valid, or in accordance with the law.
Decision
- Petition allowed
- Detenue to be set at liberty if not required in any other case
- Order dated 16.01.2024 quashed
Case Title: SUFIYAN MOHAMMEDHUSAIN SAIYAD THROUGH MOHAMMAD HUSEN ABBASALI SAIYED Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/2617/2024
