In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, a preventive detention order dated 07.01.2024 has been quashed, leading to the immediate release of the detenue. The case questioned the basis of the detention, highlighting the importance of upholding personal liberty and legal principles. This judgement sets a crucial precedent for future cases involving preventive detention and the protection of individual rights.
Arguments
- The impugned order of detention is challenged as it was solely based on the registration of two FIRs for offenses under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, without sufficient evidence to link the detenue’s actions to public order disturbance.
- The detaining authority did not consider that the detenue was released on bail for all offenses, indicating a lack of necessity for preventive detention.
- The detenue’s alleged anti-social activities do not demonstrate a threat to public order but rather a breach of law and order.
- The detaining authority failed to show how the detenue’s actions disrupted the social fabric of society or endangered public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is questioned as the allegations in the FIRs do not meet the criteria for preventive detention under Section 2(c) of the Act.
- The detenue’s actions do not appear to pose a significant threat to public order based on the available materials and lack of specific evidence.
- Case law, such as Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, highlights the need for caution in ordering preventive detention when the individual is already on bail for similar charges.
Analysis
- Preventive detention powers are exceptional and draconian, with origins in colonial era.
- Constitution has safeguards to prevent abuse of preventive detention powers.
- Constitutional debates ensured preventive detention does not become arbitrary state authority exercise.
- Recent cases show misuse of preventive detention powers in Telangana, with several orders quashed.
- Distinction between disturbance to law and order vs. public order crucial for preventive detention actions.
- Routine and unjustified use of Preventive Detention Law in Telangana highlighted by recent court decisions.
- Personal liberty of accused must be protected even in preventive detention cases.
- Detaining authorities must have proper appreciation of facts before ordering preventive detention.
- Detentions must be based on serious disturbances affecting public order, not minor infractions.
- Acts must affect community or public at large to warrant preventive detention.
- The freedom of a human being is supreme and cannot be restricted unless absolutely necessary.
- Detention orders must be in line with Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
- Preventive detention by a District Magistrate should be to prevent subversion of public order, not for maintaining law and order.
- Taking shelter under preventive detention laws may not be the appropriate remedy in certain cases.
- Detention under preventive laws should not be used to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial.
- Detention should be based on lawful standards and evaluated against challenges pending before relevant bodies.
- Offences should be punished under applicable laws rather than resorting to preventive detention laws.
- Contravention of law must affect the community or public at large before it is considered to affect public order.
- Preventive detention is for a limited period and should not replace the normal investigative functions of authorities.
- Preventive detention is meant to prevent future offences but should not substitute the ordinary legal process.
- Registration of FIR/s alone cannot be linked to breach of maintenance of public order.
- Detaining authority must ensure that the detention process follows established legal procedures.
- Personal liberty under Article 21 is a fundamental right and must be upheld unless in rare and exceptional cases as per Article 22.
Decision
- The present petition is allowed.
- The impugned order of detention dated 07.01.2024 is quashed and set aside.
- The petitioner, detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- Rule made absolute to the above extent.
- Direct service is permitted.
Case Title: UJJVAL SUNILBHAI RANA THROUGH PRITESH SUNILBHAI RANA Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/1096/2024
