In a recent landmark judgment by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 was quashed. The case involved the detenue challenging the order dated 21.01.2024. The court’s decision sets an important precedent regarding the careful consideration and application of preventive detention laws. Stay informed about this significant legal development.
Facts
- The petition is challenging the order of detention dated 21.01.2024 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 defined as a detenue under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Arguments
- Activities of the petitioner – detenue disturbed the social fabric and threatened the normal life of the people.
- The registration of criminal cases had put the social apparatus in disorder according to the detaining authority.
- No material besides witness statements and FIRs showed the alleged activities as a breach of public order.
- The detaining authority did not consider that the petitioner – detenue was already released on bail for all offenses.
- Impugned order solely based on registration of two FIRs was argued to be insufficient for detention under the Act.
- The alleged illegal activities lacked nexus with public order and were deemed to be a breach of law and order.
- AGP for the State supported the detention order
- Sufficient materials and evidences were found during investigation
- Detenue is in the habit of activities under Section 2(c) of the Act
- Detaining authority passed the order rightly
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority found to be not legal
- Allegations against detenue not germane to Section 2(c) of the Act
- No material to show detenue as a threat to society disrupting public order
- General statements without specific dangerous actions on record
Analysis
- Authorities must consider Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India while issuing detention orders.
- Detention orders should be issued cautiously with strict constitutional safeguards against abuse.
- District Magistrate’s actions under Rule 30(1)(b) should be to prevent public order subversion, not for regular law and order maintenance.
- Three key circles of concern: law and order, public order, and security of State.
- Absence of any bail cancellation application by State authorities is noted by the Court in the order.
- The current case exemplifies failure to consider relevant circumstances affecting the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction.
- The two FIRs against the detenu could have been addressed through normal criminal law procedures.
- A mere disturbance of law and order does not necessarily warrant action under the Defence of India Act, but disturbances affecting public order do.
- The routine and unjustified use of Preventive Detention Law in Telangana has been noted in recent cases.
- Detention under preventive laws should not be a substitute for normal criminal proceedings and investigative processes.
- Preventive detention should be for a limited duration and not used to keep individuals in perpetual custody without trial.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ has been emphasized in various cases to guide the proper application of preventive detention laws.
- Simplicitor registration of FIRs does not have a nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order.
- The authority cannot invoke 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 of high constitutional value.
- The detaining authority must show that the detention aligns with the procedure established by law.
Decision
- The present petition is allowed.
- The order of detention dated 21.01.2024 is quashed and set aside.
- The petitioner, detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- Direct service is permitted.
- Rule made absolute to the above extent.
Case Title: PRAVIN @ PARIYO S/O JILUBHAI MAKVANA THROUGH KAUSHIK JILUBHAI MAKVANA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/4260/2024
