In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has quashed the detention order against Rohitbhai Rajeshbhai Jilariya, challenging the State of Gujarat. The Court’s decision marks a crucial moment in upholding legal safeguards and human rights. Stay tuned for more updates on this groundbreaking case.
Facts
- Petitioner Rohitbhai Rajeshbhai Jilariya was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 by the Police Commissioner, Morbi.
- The detention order was passed on 17.01.2024 based on the classification of the petitioner as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985.
- The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order through this petition.
Issue
- Detaining Authority passed the impugned order based on detenue’s antecedents and past activities
- Objective of the order is to prevent detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Morbi
- Issue: Sustainability of the detention order under the Act of 1985
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention do not pertain to ‘public order’ but are related to ‘law and order’.
- The registration of the offense is claimed to not have adversely affected, or likely to affect, the maintenance of public order as per the Act, 1985.
- The detenue’s alleged offenses are said to only impact law and order, not public order.
- The State Counsel argues that the detenue is a habitual offender and his actions have societal implications.
- The respondent argued that the evidence against them was insufficient to prove their guilt
- The respondent claimed that they were falsely accused and that the charges were fabricated
- The respondent stated that they did not have a fair trial and that their rights were violated
- The respondent requested for a review of the evidence and a reconsideration of the judgement
- The respondent expressed concerns about the conditions in jail and requested for better treatment
Analysis
- Incidents of beating by the petitioner took place as alleged by witnesses, but do not impact public order maintenance.
- Reference to two criminal cases in the detention grounds does not justify detention based on public order concerns.
- Merely being a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless activities affect public order maintenance.
- Offenses for which the petitioner was granted bail do not relate to public order maintenance.
- The expression ‘public order’ distinguishes between ordinary criminal acts and those affecting the community or public at large.
- A mere disturbance of law and order is insufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act; it must affect public order.
- The case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal clarifies the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’.
- The judgment emphasizes that serious and aggravated forms of disorder directly affecting the community come under public order violations.
- The detaining authority in the current case failed to prove the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner would adversely impact public order.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad highlights the importance of actions affecting public order for a valid detention order.
- The material on record is insufficient to show that the alleged activities of the detenue have adversely affected or are likely to affect public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not considered legal, valid, and in accordance with the law.
- The offences alleged against the petitioner and the allegations made by witnesses do not create a feeling of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area in question.
- There is no indication that the offenses or allegations have resulted in a threat to the maintenance of public order.
Decision
- The petition stands allowed.
- The order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority is quashed.
- Direct service is permitted.
- The rule is made absolute.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Case Title: ROHITBHAI RAJESHBHAI JILARIYA (BORICHA) Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Case Number: R/SCA/3389/2024
