In a significant legal development, the Gujarat High Court has set aside the detention order dated 11.11.2023 in the case involving the detenue. The decision addresses the validity of preventive detention laws and the necessity for substantial evidence linking alleged anti-social activities to public order. Stay informed about the latest judicial interpretation of such matters. #LegalCase #HighCourt #Quashing #DetentionOrder
Facts
- No relevant or cogent material on record linking detenue’s alleged anti-social activity with breach of public order
- Except statements of witnesses, FIRs, and Panchnama, no other evidence connecting detenue to anti-social activity
- Lack of substantial evidence to support the allegations of anti-social behavior affecting public order
Arguments
- Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority.
- AGP submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the investigation, supporting the detention.
- Material supplied to the detenue indicated a habit of engaging in activities defined under section 2(c) of the Act.
- Detaining authority passed the order based on the facts of the case.
- AGP argued that the detention order should be upheld by the Court.
Analysis
- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority not found to be legal or valid as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
- Offences alleged in the FIR/s do not relate to public order as required by the Act.
- Other relevant penal laws are sufficient to address the situation.
- Allegations against the detenue are not relevant to bring them under the definition of section 2(c) of the Act.
- No material to demonstrate detenue poses a threat to society or disrupts the social apparatus to the extent of disturbing public order.
- Lack of specific evidence showing detenue’s actions as dangerous to public order beyond general statements.
- Distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ clarified by the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal.
- Contravention of any law affects order, but to affect public order, it must impact the community or public at large.
- Serious forms of disorder affecting the community fall under the purview of public order, whereas minor breaches primarily injure specific individuals.
- Mere disturbance of law and order isn’t enough for action under the Preventive Detention Act; it must be a disturbance affecting public order.
- Cases touching public order are handled through executive powers under criminal law; individuals cannot be detained solely for disturbing public order.
- Petitioner was released by the proper jurisdiction court which could have cancelled bail if necessary; sponsoring authority did not pursue this alternative remedy.
- Reference made to recent Supreme Court decision in Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors reflecting on the distinction between assault to specific persons and public disorder.
- The State should seek cancellation of bail or move an appeal to Higher Court if the detenu is a menace to society
- Preventive detention law should not be used as a remedy in cases where simplicitor registration of FIRs does not relate to maintenance of public order
- Registering FIRs alone does not provide grounds for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act
Decision
- The present petition has been allowed
- The impugned order of detention dated 11.11.2023 has been quashed and set aside
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case
- Direct service is permitted
- The rule is made absolute accordingly
Case Title: NAEEM @NAMUSALIMBHAI MANIYAR THROUGH VAHIDABANU SALIMBHAI MANIYAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/5622/2024
