In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has ruled in the case of Samay vs. State of Gujarat. The court quashed the detention order dated 02.01.2024, citing lack of evidence to support claims of activities prejudicial to public order. The detenue, Samay, has been directed to be set at liberty forthwith. This decision highlights the importance of differentiating between law and order issues and disturbances to public order. #LegalCase #HighCourt #DetentionOrder
Facts
- The petitioner, Samay @ Lalu Laxmanbhai Pujabhai Gangdekar, was preventively detained under the Act of 1985 by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad.
- The detention order was dated 02.01.2024.
- The detention was based on the petitioner being classified as a ‘dangerous person’ as per Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985.
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order.
- Mr. Chirag H. Parekh represented the petitioner, and Mr. L.B. Dabhi represented the respondent State in court.
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is legally sustainable.
- This involves examining the facts and submissions made by both parties to determine the validity of the detention order.
- The key question is whether the Detaining Authority acted within their powers as prescribed by the Act of 1985.
Arguments
- The advocate representing the detenue argues that the grounds of detention are related to law and order, not public order.
- The registration of the offense is claimed not to have impacted or be likely to impact public order.
- The advocate asserts that the detenue’s alleged offenses only pertain to law and order, not public order.
- The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order based on the detenue’s antecedents and past activities.
- The order aims to prevent the detenue from engaging in activities prejudicial to public order in Ahmedabad.
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender whose actions have negatively impacted society.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to prove the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner affect public order.
- The petitioner was granted bail in all the mentioned offenses.
- The criminal cases referenced do not indicate a threat to public order.
- Acts of beating by the petitioner occurred but did not disrupt community life.
- The incidents do not impact the maintenance of public order.
- The authority incorrectly concluded that the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to public order based on the criminal cases.
- The offenses mentioned do not relate to the maintenance of public order.
- The detention order in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 was based on registration of two prohibition offences.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention Act.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is important in determining the necessity for preventive detention.
- Not every act of assault or injury to specific persons leads to public disorder, it must affect the community or public at large to be considered a disturbance of public order.
- The alleged offences and allegations against the petitioner in the order of detention did not create a sense of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- The actions of the detenue were not found to adversely impact or have the potential to impact public order in the area.
- The material on record was deemed insufficient to support the detention order based on public order concerns.
- Being a bootlegger alone is not grounds for preventive detention under the Act unless the activities of the individual as a bootlegger directly impact public order as outlined in section 3(4) of the Act.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was found to be legally invalid as it was not based on sufficient evidence of public order disturbances.
Decision
- The order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority has been quashed.
- Direct service has been permitted.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
- The rule has been made absolute accordingly.
Case Title: SAMAY @ LALU LAXMANBHAI PUJABHAI GANGDEKAR (CHHARA) THROUGH MEGHA LAXMANBHAI GANDEKAR (CHHARA ) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDADBAD
Case Number: R/SCA/685/2024
