In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has delivered a crucial judgment in a case involving the detenue and the State of Gujarat regarding the maintenance of public order. The court’s ruling sheds light on the distinction between public order and law and order, setting a precedent for future preventive detention cases in the state.
Facts
- The petitioner was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, as a bootlegger.
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, on 13.12.2023.
- The legality and validity of the detention order is being challenged by the petitioner in this petition.
Issue
- The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order based on the detenue’s antecedents and past activities to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Surat.
- The issue raised is whether the detention order under the Act of 1985 is legally sustainable.
- The main consideration is whether there is a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made under it in this case.
Arguments
- Advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention have no nexus to ‘public order’ but are related to ‘law and order’
- Registration of the offence is not seen as adversely affecting the maintenance of public order
- Detenue’s alleged offences are categorized as prejudicial to law and order, not public order
- State Counsel argues that detenue is a habitual offender and his activities impact society
Analysis
- Activities of the detenue as a ‘bootlegger’ were considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the Act of 1985.
- Although the applicant was granted bail for the offenses related to prohibition, the authority wrongly concluded that the activities were prejudicial to public order.
- The offenses under Sections 65(A), (E), 81, and 83 of the Prohibition Act, for which the petitioner was jailed, were cited in the grounds of detention but were found to have no bearing on public order maintenance.
- Being a ‘bootlegger’ alone does not warrant preventive detention unless their activities adversely affect public order as specified in the Act.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention act; it must affect public order.
- Distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is crucial.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily lead to public disorder.
- Incidents like quarrels and fights, while disorders, do not amount to public disorder.
- Detaining individuals for disturbing public order requires evidence of impact on the community as a whole.
- Anti-social activities must be proven to adversely affect or have the potential to affect public order for preventive detention act to be invoked.
- The alleged offences and allegations against the petitioner did not create any feeling of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- There is no evidence that the activities of the petitioner affected or were likely to affect the maintenance of public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not based on sufficient legal grounds.
Decision
- Petition allowed and order dated 13.12.2023 quashed
- Direct service permitted
- Rule made absolute
- Detenue to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in another case
Case Title: MAYUR S/O DINESHCHANDRA RANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/21484/2023
