In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order issued against Asif @ Patel Yusufbhai Patel by the State of Gujarat has been quashed. The court examined the impact of Asif’s activities on public order in Ahmedabad and ruled in favor of setting him at liberty. This judgment clarifies the legal requirements for preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. #LegalCase #HighCourt #DetentionOrder
Facts
- The petitioner, Asif @ Patel Yusufbhai Patel, was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detention order was passed on 12.01.2024 by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
- The petitioner was categorized as a ‘dangerous person’ as per Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985.
- This petition challenges the legality and validity of the detention order.
Issue
- Detaining Authority passed an order of detention under the Act of 1985
- Consideration of whether the order of detention is sustainable in law
- Detainee has been executed and is currently in jail
- Grounds of detention include reference to two criminal cases registered against the detainee
- Detainee’s activities as a ‘dangerous person’ are alleged to have adverse effects or likely to have such effects
Arguments
- Learned advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention do not have a nexus to ‘public order’ but pertain to ‘law and order’
- Detenue’s alleged offenses do not impact public order but only law and order as per the advocate
- State Counsel asserts that the detenue is a habitual offender whose activities affect society at large
- Detaining Authority passed the order based on detenue’s antecedents and past activities to prevent actions prejudicial to public order in Ahmedabad area
Analysis
- The petitioner, a bootlegger, was granted bail in all the alleged offences.
- The offences and allegations against the petitioner do not impact public order, but rather concern specific individuals.
- The authority incorrectly concluded the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to public order based on two criminal cases.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Act, requires impact on public order.
- The detaining authority failed to prove the petitioner’s activities adversely affect public order as per Section 3 of the Act.
- Incidents of beating by the petitioner were alleged, but they did not create panic or affect the community’s pace of life.
- The alleged offences, while punishable, did not instill feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror affecting public order.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was clearly defined in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal.
- Serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly affecting the community or public interest were differentiated from minor breaches of peace with local significance.
- The detention order in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad was based on the registration of two prohibition offences.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention laws.
- Not every act of assault or injury to specific persons constitutes a breach of public order; such cases are usually addressed under ordinary criminal law enforcement.
- The contravention of any law affects order, but to qualify as affecting public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- Preventive detention under the provisions of the Act is not applicable unless the activities of the individual as a bootlegger negatively impact or are likely to impact public order.
- This condition is stipulated in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act.
- The order of detention was not upheld as the material on record was insufficient to prove that the detenue’s alleged activities affected or were likely to affect public order adversely.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed to be not legal, valid, and in accordance with the law.
- The petition was allowed based on the above reasons.
Decision
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- The rule is made absolute accordingly.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
Case Title: ASIF @ PATEL YUSUFBHAI PATEL THRO AYESHABANU ASIF PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1345/2024
