In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order in the case of Aamirkhan vs. State of Gujarat has been quashed. The court found that the grounds of detention did not relate to public order but rather to law and order. This decision marks a crucial development in preventive detention laws. Read on for more insights!
Facts
- The detention of Aamirkhan @ Baba Firozkhan Navabkhan Pathan was under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The order for preventive detention was issued on 30.12.2023 by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
- Aamirkhan @ Baba Firozkhan Navabkhan Pathan was detained as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Issue
- Whether the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder?
Arguments
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the grounds of detention do not relate to ‘public order’ but are about ‘law and order’
- The advocate claims that the offenses alleged do not impact public order, only law and order
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender and his actions affect society at large
- The Detaining Authority passed the order to prevent the detenue from acting prejudicial to public order in Ahmedabad
- The issue is whether the detention order is legally valid under the Act of 1985
- The petitioner is currently in jail following the execution of the impugned order
- The grounds of detention mention three criminal cases against the petitioner, all of which he was granted bail for
- Upon analysis, the court determines that the authority wrongly concluded that the detenue’s activities are prejudicial to public order based on the three criminal cases
- The observed offenses do not impact the maintenance of public order
Analysis
- The expression `public order’ needs to be distinguished from `law and order’.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Act.
- Infractions of order must affect the community or public at large to be considered as affecting public order.
- Cases of prohibition offenses are dealt with under ordinary criminal law, not under preventive detention for disturbing public order.
- Disturbances that affect public order come within the scope of the Preventive Detention Act.
- The offences alleged against the petitioner do not create any feeling of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area.
- The alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner do not adversely affect the maintenance of public order.
- Incidents of beating by the petitioner, as alleged by witnesses, do not impact public order.
- The petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences, but they do not disrupt the even tempo of community life.
- 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 essential to prove that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act to justify preventive detention.
- However, being a bootlegger does not automatically warrant preventive detention unless it can be shown that the petitioner’s activities are a threat to public order.
- The material on record is not sufficient to show that the detenue’s activities have adversely affected public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not legal, valid, or in accordance with the law.
- Therefore, the detention cannot be upheld based on the current evidence.
Decision
- The order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty immediately unless required in another case.
- The Rule is made absolute accordingly.
- Direct service is permitted in this case.
- The petition is allowed as a result.
Case Title: AAMIRKHAN @ BABA FIROZKHAN NAVABKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1671/2024
