In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court ruled on the quashing of the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The case highlighted the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring public order is maintained. This decision sets a precedent in determining the boundaries of preventive detention in cases involving alleged anti-social activities. Stay informed about the legal implications of this ruling.
Facts
- The detaining authority passed an order of detention on 01.11.2023 against the petitioner under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
- The petitioner was detained as a dangerous person under section 3(2) of the Act.
- This petition challenges the legality of the detention order issued by the detaining authority.
- The petitioner seeks relief against the detention order on the grounds of violation of their fundamental rights.
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the alleged illegal activity does not relate to public order but is merely a breach of law and order.
- The registration of three offences under the Indian Penal Code is not sufficient to categorize the detenue’s case under section 2(c) of the Act.
- Apart from witness statements, FIRs, and Panchnama, there is no substantial evidence connecting the detenue’s alleged anti-social activity to a breach of public order.
- It is asserted that the detenue’s actions in the criminal cases did not disrupt society or threaten the normal functioning of daily life, thus not affecting public order significantly.
- Learned AGP for the State supported the detention order
- Sufficient material and evidence found during investigation
- Detenue habitually indulged in activities defined under the Act
- Detaining authority rightly passed the order of detention
- Detention order deserves to be upheld
- Detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City
- Detaining authority relied on four offences registered with Amraiwadi and Ramol Police Stations
- Details of the offences provided
- Grounds for quashment of detention order raised by learned advocate
- Reference to decision of the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal
- Even if one ground is fake, detention order must be struck out
Analysis
- The detaining authority did not provide objective evidence to show that detention is the only option available.
- Merely having three offenses registered against the petitioner does not automatically indicate a threat to public order.
- Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was questioned as the alleged offenses may not impact public order.
- The offenses mentioned in the FIRs are covered by relevant penal laws and do not necessitate detention under the Act.
- There is no concrete material on record to prove that the detenue poses a threat to public order or society in a manner that disturbs the whole tempo.
- In cases of quarrel and assault between individuals, it is considered disorder but not public disorder.
- For actions under the Preventive Detention Act, a disturbance must affect the community or public at large to be considered public order.
- The detaining authority must conduct a meaningful exercise and apply their mind to the documents before making a decision.
- The distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ was clarified in the case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal.
- The Court differentiated between serious, community-affecting disorders and minor breaches of peace with local significance.
- Not every act of assault or injury to specific individuals leads to public disorder.
- The sponsoring authority did not pursue the option of cancellation of bail, indicating a lack of necessity of preventive detention.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors. emphasized the availability of alternative remedies before resorting to preventive detention.
- Registration of FIR alone does not have a connection with the breach of public order.
- Preventive detention law should not be used as a remedy in cases where bail cancellation or appeal to higher court is available.
- The authority cannot invoke power under section 3(2) of the Act without relevant and cogent material.
- The Special Civil Application was allowed as preventive detention was not deemed appropriate in this case.
Decision
- Direct service is permitted.
- Rule is made absolute accordingly.
- The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
- The impugned order of detention dated 01.11.2023 is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: RAMESHBHAI KOLANJI KAVANDAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD CITY
Case Number: R/SCA/20213/2023
