In a significant legal battle, the Gujarat High Court examines the validity of the preventive detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The case involves Vimal @ Amit Kishanbhai Katheriya challenging the order passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, impacting public order. Stay tuned to learn more about the court’s ruling on this crucial matter.
Facts
- The petitioner Vimal @ Amit Kishanbhai Katheriya was preventively detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
- The detention order was passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, on 04.12.2023.
- The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the detention order.
- The petitioner is classified as a ‘dangerous person’ under Section 2(c) of the Act of 1985.
Issue
- Considered facts and submissions made by both parties
- Questioning sustainability of detention order by Detaining Authority under Act of 1985
- Impugned order executed on the applicant
- Issue pertains to legality and validity of the detention order
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention do not relate to public order but rather to law and order.
- The registration of the offence is claimed to have no adverse effect on public order as per the Act, 1985.
- The detenue’s alleged offences are not seen as impacting public order but rather affecting law and order.
- The detenue’s activities are considered prejudicial to law and order but not to public order.
- State Counsel argued that the detenue is a habitual offender.
- The detenue’s activities have negatively impacted society at large.
- The Detaining Authority considered the detenue’s antecedents and past activities.
- The impugned order was passed to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order in Ahmedabad.
Analysis
- Three criminal cases were referenced in the grounds of detention against the applicant.
- All alleged offenses resulted in the applicant being granted bail.
- The authority wrongly concluded the applicant’s activities were prejudicial to public order based on the criminal cases.
- The offenses committed by the applicant did not disrupt public order in the community.
- Being a bootlegger does not justify preventive detention unless it adversely affects public order.
- The alleged activities of the applicant did not create fear or panic among the public.
- The order of detention was deemed insufficient and not legally valid.
- The detaining authority failed to prove the alleged anti-social activities affected public order.
- Every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder.
- Cases of individuals quarreling and fighting inside a house or in a street may be disorderly but not classified as public disorder.
- Such cases are typically handled by executive authorities under their powers.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient grounds for preventive detention, unless it escalates to affect public order.
- A distinction is made between serious and aggravated forms of disorder affecting the community and minor breaches of peace primarily involving specific individuals.
- To warrant action under the Preventive Detention Act, a disturbance must have the potential to impact public order.
Case Title: VIMAL @ AMIT KISHANBHAI KATHERIYA THROUGH SUNITA DEVI KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCR.A/6474/2024
