In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order in the case of State of Telangana vs. [Petitioner]. The court found that the allegations made did not meet the threshold of posing a risk to public order, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between law and order and public order in preventive detention cases.
Arguments
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the detention order should be quashed as it was solely based on the registration of three FIRs for various sections of the Prohibition Act.
- The advocate asserts that the allegations do not fall within the definition under Section 2(b) of the Act and do not relate to public order but rather to law and order.
- It is contended that the alleged illegal activities do not have a nexus to public order and are at most a breach of law and order.
- The respondent – State supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority.
- The respondent submitted that sufficient materials and evidence were found during the investigation, indicating that the petitioner is in the habit of engaging in activities defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.
- The detaining authority is believed to have rightly passed the detention order based on the facts of the case.
- However, upon review of the documents and materials available on record, it is found that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority may not be legal or valid.
- The offences alleged in the FIR do not seem to have any bearing on public order as required under the Act, and other relevant penal laws should suffice to address the situation.
- The allegations against the petitioner may not be relevant for bringing them within the scope of Section 2(b) of the Act.
- There is no substantial material to suggest that the petitioner has become a threat to society or has endangered public order.
- Without concrete evidence that the petitioner poses a significant danger to society and disrupts public order, they cannot be classified under Section 2(b) of the Act.
Analysis
- The case involves relying on certain apex court case laws to clarify the position of the law
- These laws have origins in the colonial era but are now upheld with constitutional safeguards
- The current case shows a lack of consideration of material circumstances by the detaining authority
- The two FIRs against the detenu could have been addressed through regular criminal law processes
- Using preventive detention law in this case is deemed inappropriate given the circumstances
- Disturbance to ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ distinguished by the Apex Court in various cases.
- Routine and unjustified use of Preventive Detention Law in the State of Telangana highlighted.
- The Apex Court emphasizes on the distinction between law and order, public order, and security of the State.
- Examples given to illustrate the difference between law and order, public order, and security of the State.
- The significance of Article 22 of the Constitution in preventing arbitrary use of preventive detention powers.
- Cases of detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 being quashed due to incorrect application of standards for public order maintenance.
- Drawing line of demarcation between serious/aggravated forms of disorder affecting community/public interest and minor breaches of peace primarily injuring specific individuals.
- Mere disturbance of law and order not sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Act.
- Disturbance affecting public order falls within scope of the Act.
- Registration of FIR alone does not have nexus with breach of public order.
- No relevant material present for invoking power under Section 3(1) of the Act.
Decision
- The present petition is allowed.
- The impugned order of detention dated 25.01.2024 is quashed and set aside.
- Rule made absolute to the aforementioned extent.
- The petitioner – detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: MAHAMAD AAKIB @ BABA MAHAMAD AASIF GULAMNABI SHAIKH THRO MAHAMAD AASIF GULAMNABI SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCR.A/5837/2024
