In a significant legal judgment by the Gujarat High Court, the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 has been deemed invalid. The case centered around the alleged actions of a bootlegger and their impact on public order. After thorough consideration, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing their immediate release. This decision marks a crucial clarification on the distinction between law and order versus public order. Stay tuned for more insights on this landmark case.
Issue
- The issue at hand is whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985 is legally valid.
- After considering the facts and arguments presented by both parties, the question arises regarding the legality of the detention order.
- The petitioner is currently in jail as a result of the impugned order.
- This case involves a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Constitution of India or its orders.
Analysis
- Merely being a bootlegger does not automatically justify preventive detention under public order provisions.
- Disturbance of law and order is not enough, it must be shown to affect public order to invoke preventive detention.
- The detaining authority failed to prove that the petitioner’s activities were prejudicial to public order.
- Reference to criminal cases where the petitioner was granted bail does not establish impact on public order.
- Drawing a line between serious community-affecting disorder and minor, local disturbances is crucial in determining public order impact.
- The alleged offenses did not create insecurity, panic, or terror among the public, thus not affecting public order.
- Based on the material, the authority incorrectly concluded the petitioner’s actions were prejudicial to public order.
- The offenses cited do not have a direct impact on public order according to the court’s analysis.
- In the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, the distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was clarified.
- Mere disturbance of law and order leading to a detention order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention laws.
- In the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, the detention order was based on the registration of two prohibition offences.
- Contravention of any law affects order, but for it to impact public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
- Not every act of assault or injury to specific persons leads to public disorder.
- Individuals cannot be preventively detained under the Act unless their activities as a bootlegger affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is found to be invalid
- The material on record is insufficient to prove the alleged activities of the detenue affecting public order
- The order of detention is not upheld
Decision
- The order dated 27.08.2023 is quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty immediately unless needed in another case.
- The rule is made absolute accordingly.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: RAHUL PUNAMBHAI SOLANKI THROUGH SOLANKI KHEMIBEN PUNAMBHAI Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/2397/2024
