In a recent ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, was challenged by Ramu @ Ramu Godhro @ Ram Rajadi Somabhai Mavi. The court’s decision marks a crucial assertion of the principles governing preventive detention, emphasizing the necessity for actions to impact public order rather than mere law and order disturbances. This case delves into the nuanced interpretation of anti-social activities and their implications on societal well-being. #LegalJudgement #HighCourt #DetentionOrder
Facts
- The petitioner, Ramu @ Ramu Godhro @ Ram Rajadi Somabhai Mavi, was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, on 21.12.2023
- The petitioner is categorized as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985
- This petition challenges the legality and validity of the detention order
Issue
- The issue at hand is the sustainability of the order of detention under the Act of 1985.
- The detainee is currently under the execution of the impugned order.
- The considerations include the facts of the case and submissions by both parties.
- The key question is whether the Detaining Authority’s order is legally valid.
Arguments
- The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Surat.
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention do not relate to public order but are a matter of law and order, as the alleged offences do not impact public order according to the Act.
- The advocate contends that the detenue’s activities are only prejudicial to law and order, not public order.
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender and his activities have affected society at large.
Analysis
- The detaining authority wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction based on two criminal cases that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
- The detaining authority failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of the detenue adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- The petitioner was granted bail in all the offences alleged against him.
- The acts constituting the offences, even if committed by the petitioner, cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community.
- Being a bootlegger does not automatically warrant preventive detention unless the activities as a bootlegger adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- The mentioned offences do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.
- A clear line of demarcation must be drawn between serious forms of disorder affecting the community and minor breaches of peace with local significance.
- Preventive detention is only applicable for serious forms of disorder that affect public order.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act, it must affect public order.
- Contravention of any law affects order, but to affect public order, it must impact the community or the public at large.
- The Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal case clarified the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’.
- The case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, involved detention orders based on the registration of two prohibition offenses.
- Material on record insufficient to prove alleged activities affecting public order
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority not legal or valid
- Offences alleged not creating feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public
- Order of detention cannot be upheld
Decision
- The petitioner’s plea has been granted and the petition is allowed.
- Direct service is permitted in this case.
- The order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the respondent authority has been quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be immediately set at liberty, unless required in any other case.
Case Title: RAMU @ RAMU GODHRO @ RAM RAJADI SOMABHAI MAVI THROUGH LAXMAN SOMABHAI MAVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/352/2024
