In a recent judgment, the Gujarat High Court ruled on the quashing of a preventive detention order in the case involving the State as the respondent and the detenue as the petitioner. The Court found that the detaining authority failed to substantiate the alleged antisocial activities of the detenue adversely affecting public order. This summary highlights the key arguments presented by the advocate for the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of connection between the detenue’s actions and public order disturbance.
Arguments
- The advocate for the petitioner argues that the detenue’s solitary criminal case did not affect the tempo of society or pose a threat to normal life.
- The advocate also contends that the alleged illegal activity lacks a connection to the maintenance of public order.
- Apart from witness statements, FIRs, and investigation panchnama, no substantial evidence links the detenue’s actions to a breach of public order.
- Learned AGP for the State supported the detention order, stating sufficient evidence was found during investigation.
- Detenue has habit of indulging in activity defined under section 2(b) of the Act.
- Detaining authority passed the order of detention rightfully.
- Detention order deserves to be upheld by the Court.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to substantiate that the alleged antisocial activities of the petitioner-detenu adversely affect the maintenance of public order.
- Detaining authority did not consider the cancellation of bail option, which reflects a lack of application of mind.
- The solitary incident in question did not show a direct link to affecting public order or creating public disturbance.
- Mere registration of FIR under the Prohibition Act does not impact public order.
- ‘Bootlegger’ status alone is not sufficient to warrant preventive detention unless activities adversely affect public order.
- No relevant material existed to invoke power under section 3(2) of the PASA Act.
- The order of detention was quashed and set aside, and the detenue was to be released immediately.
- Preventive detention is not the proper remedy for offences that do not affect public order or public health.
- State has other remedies such as seeking cancellation of bail or moving an appeal to a higher court in case the individual is a menace to society.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on justifiable material and reasons that the individual poses a threat to public order.
- The allegations must be germane to the purpose of bringing the individual within the scope of preventive detention laws.
- Material must establish that the person is a threat to society and may disturb the whole tempo of society, endangering public order.
- The focus should be on ‘public order’ and not ‘law and order’ for preventive detention laws to apply.
- Preventive detention order can be based on a solitary incident if it is likely to disturb public order and needs preventive control.
Case Title: RAMJIVAN S/O KUMBHARAM JANGU BISHNOI THROUGH KISHANA RAM S/O KUMBHARAM JANGU BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/21266/2023
