In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has quashed a preventive detention order in the case of Sohanlal Surjaram Visnoi v. State of Gujarat. The court found that the detaining authority failed to show how the petitioner’s activities adversely affect public order or public health. The decision underscores the importance of proper evidence in cases of preventive detention. Read on for more insights.
Arguments
- Learned Advocate for the detenue argues that the alleged illegal activity has no connection to public order.
- Apart from witness statements, FIRs, and Panchnama, there is no substantial evidence linking the detenue’s actions to breach of public order.
- Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the respondent authority.
- AGP mentioned that there was sufficient material and evidence found against the detenue during investigation.
- Detenue was found to be habitually engaging in activities defined under section 2(b) of the Act.
- Given the facts of the case, the detaining authority was justified in passing the detention order.
- AGP urged the Court to uphold the detention order.
Analysis
- Preventive detention orders can be passed based on a solitary incident if it may disturb public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on justifiable material showing adverse impact on public order.
- Previous court decisions have emphasized that mere possession or selling of liquor may not affect public order.
- Detaining authority failed to show how the petitioner’s activities adversely affect public order or public health.
- Detaining authority did not consider the option of cancelling bail as a less drastic remedy.
- Recent Supreme Court decision suggests that preventive detention might not be appropriate if less drastic remedies can be applied.
- Offences alleged in the FIR should have a bearing on public order as required by the Act.
- Allegations against the detenue should indicate a threat or menace to society to be considered a ‘bootlegger’ under the Act.
- Observations made in the case of Sohanlal Surjaram Visnoi, reported in 2004 (2) GLR 1051 are relied upon by the Court.
- The Court specifically quoted para-7 of the above-mentioned case.
- In para-7, the Court made certain observations that are considered relevant in the present case.
- The Court finds merit in the observations made in para-7 of the Sohanlal Surjaram Visnoi case.
- Allowing the petition as simplicitor registration of FIR/s does not have a nexus with breach of maintenance of public order.
- No other relevant material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act.
- The detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction is vitiating as there is no material on record to support the conclusion.
- Detaining authority cannot arrive at such a conclusion without proper material on record.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted in the case.
- Rule is made absolute accordingly.
- Detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- The present petition is allowed.
- The impugned order of detention dated 27.06.2023 passed by the detaining authority is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: MAHAVIRSING NARPATSING VARADSING BHATI (RAJPUT) Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/66/2024
