In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has issued a ruling in the case of Petitioner vs. Police Commissioner, Surat, regarding the quashing of a detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The judgment addresses the crucial distinction between law and order issues and matters pertaining to public order. Let’s delve into the details of this important case and its implications on preventive detention laws.
Facts
- Petitioner challenged the detention order 15.01.2024 issued by Police Commissioner, Surat.
- The petitioner was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The petitioner claimed the order was illegal and invalid.
- The challenge was based on the definition of ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985.
Issue
- The Detaining Authority passed the order with consideration of the detenue’s antecedents and past activities.
- The order was aimed at preventing the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Surat.
- The issue at hand is whether the detention order is legally sustainable under the Act of 1985.
Arguments
- The registration of the offense did not affect or likely to affect the maintenance of public order as per the Act, 1985.
- The detenue’s alleged offenses were more related to the maintenance of law and order rather than public order.
- The learned State Counsel argued that the detenue’s habitual offending behavior had a significant impact on society.
- The advocate for the detenue emphasized that the grounds of detention did not have a connection to public order but were specific to individual matters.
- The Respondent argued that the order was executed based on applicable laws and regulations
- They claimed that the applicant was given proper notice and opportunity to be heard
- The Respondent stated that all necessary procedures were followed before executing the order
- They mentioned that the applicant’s rights were duly considered during the process
- The Respondent contended that the execution of the order was in compliance with legal requirements
Analysis
- The detaining authority did not provide evidence that the petitioner’s alleged anti-social activities affect public order.
- The authority incorrectly concluded the petitioner’s activities were ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ based on two criminal cases.
- The mentioned criminal cases do not relate to public order and the petitioner was granted bail for all offenses.
- Disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention Act, must affect public order which directly affects the community or the public interest.
- Difference between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ is highlighted citing Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal case.
- Mere assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder, must be a serious and aggravated form of disorder affecting the community.
- Minor breaches of peace with local significance primarily injure individuals and only secondarily affect public interest.
- Preventive detention should not be used for disturbances that do not affect public order but can be addressed under ordinary criminal law.
- Reference made to Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad case where detention order was made based on prohibition offences, highlighting the distinction between disorder and public disorder.
- Incidents do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.
- Being a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless activities affect public order.
- Offences alleged against the petitioner do not create insecurity, panic, or terror in public.
- Order of detention cannot be upheld as it lacks sufficient evidence of affecting public order.
- Detenue can be punished for alleged offences, but they do not disrupt community life.
Decision
- Rule made absolute based on the context of public order.
- The order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the authority is quashed.
- Directs the detenue to be set at liberty immediately unless required in another case.
Case Title: AMIT @MONTU MALYO S/O ANADIBHAI BEHERA THRO RAMILABEN W/O KISHORBHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1346/2024
