In a recent landmark judgement, the Gujarat High Court has ruled in favor of quashing the detention order passed by the Surat Police Commissioner against Smt. Surajyakanti alias Urmila Udaynath Barik. The Court emphasized the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ in the case, highlighting the importance of evidence connecting the alleged activities to a breach of public order. Stay tuned for more insights into this significant legal decision.#HighCourtJudgement #LegalCase #PublicOrder
Arguments
- Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority.
- Sufficient material and evidence found during investigation indicate petitioner’s habit of indulging in activities defined under the Act.
- Detaining authority justified in passing the order of detention based on the facts of the case.
- Detention order deserves to be upheld by the Court.
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority found to be not legal, valid, and in accordance with the law.
- Offences alleged in the FIRs do not impact public order as required under the Act.
- Relevant penal laws are sufficient to address the situation.
- Allegations against the petitioner are not germane to bring them within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Act.
- Material must demonstrate the person as a threat and menace to society, impacting public order and social apparatus to invoke section 2(g) of the Act.
- Petitioner detained as an ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ by the Police Commissioner, Surat City.
- Order of detention dated 28.08.2023 relied on two offences.
- First offence on 11.11.2022, petitioner arrested on 12.11.2022 and enlarged on bail on 01.02.2023.
- Second offence on 10.10.2023, petitioner arrested on the same day and enlarged on 21.10.2023.
- Order of detention passed after a delay of 6 days on 27.10.2023.
Analysis
- The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash and set aside the detention order of Smt. Surajyakanti alias Urmila Udaynath Barik passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat.
- The order of detention is based on two offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
- The petitioner’s advocate argues that the registration of these offences alone does not fall within the definition of ‘public order’ under the PASA Act.
- The advocate contends that the alleged illegal activities do not have a direct link to public order but rather constitute a breach of law and order, making preventive detention an improper remedy in this case.
- Reference is made to the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ as established in the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852], highlighting that not every act of assault or injury amounts to public disorder.
- Except for witness statements, FIR registration, and Panchnama, no other evidence connects the petitioner to anti-social activities or breach of public order.
- If the petitioner is deemed a menace to society, prosecution can seek bail cancellation or appeal to Higher Court for appropriate action.
- In the absence of subjective satisfaction, the order of detention must be quashed.
- The detaining authority did not have sufficient time to apply its mind to the record before passing the order of detention.
- The detaining authority immediately passed the order of detention after recording verification with secret witnesses.
Decision
- Simplicitor registration of FIR/s does not have a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.
- No other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act.
- The impugned order of detention dated 27.10.2023 is quashed and set aside.
- The petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case Title: SURAJYAKANTI ALIAS URMILA UDAYNATH BARIK THROUGH HIS DAUGHTER MAMA JENA MANAS RANJAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/19623/2023
