In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court addressed the detention order passed by the state authorities under the Act of 1985 in the case of Muhamad Shakil against The State of Gujarat. The court’s decision sheds light on the legality of actions taken by the state in maintaining public order. Let’s delve into the details of this significant judgment.
Facts
- The petitioner, Muhamad Shakil @ Mohamad Shakil Anul Mhak Ansari, was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (the Act of 1985) as a ‘dangerous person’.
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat on 22.12.2023.
- The legality and validity of the detention order was challenged by the petitioner in the petition.
Issue
- The issue at hand is the sustainability of the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985.
- The facts and submissions of the parties have been considered in this context.
- The key question is whether the Detaining Authority’s actions are lawful under the provisions of the Act of 1985.
Arguments
- The Detaining Authority passed the order to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Surat.
- The registration of the offense did not adversely affect public order as per the Act.
- The alleged offenses do not bear on the public order but only on law and order.
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender affecting society.
- The detenue’s advocate claims the grounds of detention have no connection to public order.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner affect or are likely to affect public order.
- The acts constituting the alleged offenses did not disturb the even tempo of community life.
- There is a distinction between serious disorders affecting the community and minor breaches of peace primarily harming specific individuals.
- The offenses for which the petitioner was granted bail do not impact the maintenance of public order.
- The petitioner may be punished for the alleged offenses, but they do not directly affect public order.
- The instances of beating by the petitioner, though alleged, are not sufficient to demonstrate prejudicial impact on public order.
- Disturbance of law and order does not necessarily constitute public order.
- The detention order made in the case was based on the registration of two prohibition offences.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not sufficient for action under preventive detention
- Assault or injury to specific persons does not necessarily lead to public disorder.
- -1.2
- The alleged offences and witness allegations against the petitioner did not create a sense of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public.
- -2.1
- The activities of the detenue did not adversely affect, or have the potential to adversely affect, the maintenance of public order.
- -3.1
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not legally valid or in accordance with the law.
- -4.1
- The petition was allowed due to insufficiency of material for the detention order to be upheld.
Decision
- The court has quashed the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent authority.
- Direct service has been permitted.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty immediately, unless required in another case.
Case Title: MUHAMAD SHAKIL @ MOHAMAD SHAKIL ANUL MHAK ANSARI THROUGH NASRIN ANUL HAK ANSARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/981/2024
