In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 was challenged by Paras @ Sultan Girdharbhai @ Gordhanbhai Vaghela. The court’s decision to quash the order has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of public order. Stay tuned to understand the details of this crucial legal battle.
Facts
- Petitioner Paras @ Sultan Girdharbhai @ Gordhanbhai Vaghela challenged the detention order dated 17.01.2024 issued by the Police Commissioner, Morbi.
- The detention was under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, as a ‘dangerous person.’
- The petitioner contested the legality and validity of the detention order.
Issue
- The Detaining Authority passed the impugned order based on the detenue’s antecedents and past activities to prevent him from acting prejudicial to public order in Morbi.
- The key issue is whether the detention order under the Act of 1985 is legally sustainable.
Arguments
- State Counsel contends detenue is a habitual offender whose activities affect society at large.
- Detenue’s counsel argues grounds of detention do not pertain to public order but to law and order.
- Counsel states alleged offences do not impact maintenance of public order as per Act, 1985.
- Detenue’s activities are deemed prejudicial to law and order, not public order.
Analysis
- Two criminal cases were considered as the basis for the detention, but the authority’s subjective satisfaction was deemed to be wrong.
- Although incidents of beating were alleged, they did not impact public order.
- The detenue being a bootlegger does not automatically warrant preventive detention unless their activities adversely affect public order as per the Act.
- The alleged offenses committed by the detenue did not disrupt the even tempo of community life.
- The offenses did not have any relevance to the maintenance of public order, as they were bailable.
- The activities of the detenue have been determined as those of a ‘dangerous person’ according to Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
- These activities are found to have an adverse impact on the maintenance of public order.
- There is a likelihood that the continued activities of the detenue may further affect public order in a negative manner.
- Therefore, the detention of the individual is justified under the Act of 1985 to prevent any such adverse impact on public order.
- Every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder.
- Contravention of any law always affects order but is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act.
- Distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ clarified.
- Minor breaches of peace primarily injure specific individuals and only secondarily the public interest.
- A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act. A disturbance affecting public order falls within the Act.
- The offences alleged against the petitioner and the testimonies of witnesses did not create feelings of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- There is no evidence to suggest that the alleged activities of the detenue had or would adversely affect public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is deemed invalid as it is not supported by sufficient material on record.
Decision
- The petition has been allowed.
- The order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority has been quashed.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The rule has been made absolute, and the detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case Title: PARAS @ SULTAN GIRDHARBHAI @GORDHANBHAI VAGHELA THROUGH GORDHANBHAI @ GIRDHARBHAI KHIMJIBHAI VAGHEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/3134/2024
