In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order dated 23.12.2023 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The case raises crucial questions regarding the balance between preventive detention and individual liberties. Stay tuned to learn more about how the court’s decision impacts the broader legal landscape. #LegalJustice #HumanRights #HighCourt #Gujarat
Facts
- The present petition challenges the order of detention dated 23.12.2023 passed by the detaining authority under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detaining authority detained the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Act.
- The petitioner is considered as a detenue under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Arguments
- Petitioner’s advocate argues that there is no material showing the detenue has become a threat to society to disturb public order.
- No concrete evidence presented to prove detenue’s actions are dangerous to public order, only general statements.
- Advocate points out alleged illegal activities have no connection to public order, at most a breach of law and order.
- Lack of relevant material besides witness statements and FIR registrations to show detenue’s actions disrupt public order.
- No indication that detenue’s criminal activities affected societal fabric or disturbed public order.
- Detaining authority did not consider detenue being on bail for all offenses, questions validity of detention order.
- Court notes detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction may not be legally valid as alleged offenses do not impact public order.
- Prima facie, court finds detaining authority’s satisfaction not in line with legal requirements, offenses not relevant for detenue’s detention.
- Petitioner’s advocate argues for quashing the detention order based solely on three FIR registrations under IPC Section 379 as insufficient grounds.
Analysis
- The freedom of a human being is supreme and cannot be curtailed unless extremely necessary
- Preventive detention is detaining a person without trial to prevent certain offenses
- Disturbance to public order must affect the community at large
- Preventive detention should be exercised with caution and upon proper appreciation of facts
- Detention orders should be evaluated against lawful standards to prevent misuse
- Differentiation between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is crucial in preventive detention cases
- Personal liberty should not be sacrificed in preventive detention without proper justification
- The powers of preventive detention, although exceptional, must not be abused
- Preventive detention is the act of detaining a person without trial to prevent them from committing certain offenses.
- Preventive detention should not substitute the ordinary law and should not absolve investigating authorities from their duty to investigate crimes.
- Detention under preventive laws should not be used to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial.
- Preventive detention is usually for a year only and should not be misused to prolong custody without trial.
- Authorities issuing detention orders must consider the principles of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
- Several detention orders under the Telangana Act of 1986 have been overturned by the High Court of Telangana in the past year.
- Simplicitor registration of FIRs does not have a nexus with breach of maintenance of public order.
- Authority cannot invoke power under Section 3(1) of the Act without relevant and cogent material.
- Article 22 must be read as an exception to Article 21 and can apply only in rare and exceptional cases.
- Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is sacrosanct and detaining authority must show detention complies with the law.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted in this case.
- The petitioner, detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- The rule made is absolute to the extent mentioned.
- The impugned order of detention dated 23.12.2023 passed by the detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Title: KHURSHID @ RAJU S/O ABDUL RASHID KHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/6559/2024
