In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order dated 06.11.2023 has been quashed following a challenge by the petitioner. The Court found that there was a lack of substantial evidence linking the actions of the petitioner to a breach of public order, as required under the law. This judgment sheds light on the importance of evidence-based decision-making in matters affecting public order.
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the alleged illegal activity does not have a nexus with public order, but rather constitutes a breach of law and order.
- There is no substantial evidence besides witness statements and FIRs connecting the detenue’s actions to a breach of public order.
- The registration of offences under the Prohibition Act is not sufficient to categorize the detenue’s case under the definition of the Act.
- The AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order and provided evidence showing the detenue’s involvement in activities defined under the Act.
- The detaining authority’s order was based on sufficient material found during the investigation.
- However, upon review, it is concluded that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not legal or valid.
- The offences alleged in the FIRs do not impact public order as required by the Act.
- The Advocate for the petitioner argues that the detenue’s activities did not disrupt the social order or pose a threat to normal life.
- It is deemed that the detenue’s actions did not cause a significant disturbance to society.
Analysis
- The detaining authority did not provide contemporaneous material to support their conclusion that the sale of liquor by the petitioner caused disturbance in society or damaged public health.
- The detention order did not reflect consideration of cancelling bail as an alternative to detention.
- The Court found no live link between the two offenses committed by the petitioner.
- The detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was deemed vitiated due to lack of material on record to support their conclusions.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court made observations in para 19 regarding the pre-relied
- The pre-relied facts were considered by the Court in making its decision
- The Court emphasized the importance of pre-relied facts in the case
- The pre-relied facts played a significant role in the Court’s analysis
- In the absence of any material on record, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is considered vitiated.
- The mere registration of FIRs cannot be directly linked to the breach of maintenance of public order.
- The authority cannot invoke powers under section 3(2) of the Act solely based on the registration of FIRs.
- No other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking powers under section 3(2) of the Act.
- The petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 06.11.2023 is quashed and set aside.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: SUMITSINGH SURENDRASINGH CHAUHAN THRO HEMANT SURENDRASINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/20176/2023
