In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order against the petitioner has been quashed, highlighting the delicate balance between public order and law and order. The case sheds light on the necessity of establishing a clear distinction between activities that disturb public order and those that only impact law and order. Stay tuned to learn more about the intriguing legal details of this case.
Facts
- The petitioner-detenue has filed a petition to quash the detention order under the PASA Act.
- The grounds of detention are based on the registration of four FIRs against the petitioner, three related to theft and one to a private dispute.
- The petitioner has been granted bail in all four FIRs by the competent court.
- The advocate argues that the petitioner’s activities may disturb law and order but do not constitute a breach of public order.
Issue
- Whether the actions of Original Name in this case are in violation of a specific article or order of the Constitution of India
- Is there a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order issued under it?
- Are there conflicting interpretations or precedents that need to be clarified by the court?
Arguments
- The AGP strongly objected to the grant of the petition, stating that the alleged illegal activities of the petitioner would disturb public order.
- The detaining authority was justified in passing the order of detention considering the facts of the case.
- The AGP argued that instead of detention, the authority could have opted for the less drastic remedy of canceling bail.
- The petitioner was released on bail on 07.11.2023 and the order of detention was passed on 09.11.2023, which raises questions about the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Analysis
- Drawing a line between serious disorder affecting the community and minor breaches of peace
- Disturbance of law and order not sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act
- Subjective satisfaction not arrived at by the detaining authority before passing the order
- Detaining authority failed to substantiate that the detenue’s activities affect public order
- Merely having theft cases registered against the detenue does not relate to public order maintenance
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was discussed.
- Acts of assault or injury to specific persons do not necessarily constitute public disorder.
- Subjective satisfaction for preventive detention can be vitiated, as per the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors.
- The State has other remedies, such as seeking the cancellation of bail or moving an appeal to a Higher Court, instead of relying solely on preventive detention.
- Simplicitor registration of FIRs does not automatically indicate a breach of ‘public order.’
- The authority cannot invoke powers under section 3(2) of the Act without relevant and cogent material.
- Cancellation of bail was available as a lesser drastic remedy
- Order of detention was passed without resorting to cancellation of bail
- Order of detention was considered necessary before resorting to other remedies
Decision
- The impugned order of detention is found to be vitiated.
- The order of detention dated 09.11.2023 is quashed and set aside.
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless needed in connection with any other case.
- Rule is made absolute.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: ABHISHEK @ SITARAM DAHYABHAI PANCHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/2742/2024
