In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a detention order under the PASA Act was quashed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Surat City v/s. Bootlegger. The court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between minor breaches of peace and disturbances to public order. Stay tuned to learn more about this landmark judgment and its legal implications.
Facts
- The petitioner has filed a petition to quash the order of detention dated 25.11.2023 under the PASA Act
- The petitioner seeks to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City
- The relief sought is to release the detenue from detention
Arguments
- The advocate for the petitioner argued that the order of detention was based on a single offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
- It was emphasized that the registration of a solitary offense does not automatically fulfill the criteria under section 2(b) of the Act.
- The illegal activity attributed to the detenue does not have a nexus with the maintenance of public order.
- It is considered a breach of law and order rather than a threat to public order.
- The alleged criminal activity did not affect the normal routine life of people or disturb public order.
- The actions of the detenue did not put the entire social system in disorder or disrupt the rule of law.
Analysis
- The AGP objected to the grant of the petition stating there was sufficient material against the detenue indicating a habit of illegal activity.
- The court noted that even if the allegations against the detenue were true, they did not pose a threat to public order.
- The detenue could have been proceeded against under relevant provisions of the Act rather than being detained as a bootlegger.
- The court highlighted the difference between serious disorder affecting the community and minor breaches of peace of local significance.
- It was pointed out that mere disturbance of law and order is not enough for action under the Preventive Detention Act; there must be a disturbance affecting public order.
- The court found that subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority was not evident before passing the order of detention.
- The detenue was released on bail on 24.11.2023 and the order of detention was passed the very next day, raising doubts on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was clarified in the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal.
- The recent decision in Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana emphasized that seeking shelter under preventive detention law is not the proper remedy if the detenu is a menace to society.
- Merely registering an FIR does not constitute a breach of maintenance of public order, and therefore, invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act is not justified without relevant material.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily constitute disturbance to public order; they are typically addressed under ordinary criminal law unless they affect the community or public at large.
Case Title: KALPESHKUMAR S/O SHANKARBHAI RATHOD THROUGH HIS BROTHER KETAN S/O SANKAR RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1112/2024
