The Gujarat High Court quashed a preventive detention order under the P.A.S.A. Act, holding the detaining authority failed to apply its mind and lacked cogent material proving the detenu posed a threat to public order.
Impugned detention order dated 7.3.2018 quashed and set aside. Detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/4027/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4027 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
==========================================================
==========================================================
JIVANSINH @ TOTDIYA DEVISINH RAO
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN B RAVAL(2090) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS JYOTI BHATT, AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
Date : 11/06/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/4027/2018 JUDGMENT
Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ as under:
“2(g). “Immoral Traffic Offender” means a person who habitually commits or abets the commission of any offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956).”
“It may be noted that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that no preventive detention order can be recorded in a solitary incident or instance or offence cannot be accepted in toto. The detaining authority can pass the order of detention even on the basis of a solitary incident or instance, provided there is justifiable
Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/4027/2018 JUDGMENT
subjective satisfaction on objective material and consideration that such incident or offence is likely to create disturbance of “Public Order”. Emphasis is laid on “Public Order” and not on “Law and Order” which belongs to the realm of general law. After having taken into account the statutory definitions of the persons branded as “bootlegger” or “dangerous person” under the P.A.S.A. Act, and detailed factual matrix of each case, the solitary incident or instance in question in these petitions has not been shown or spelt out from the record as affecting the “Public Order” or likely to create public disturbance or prejudicial or adverse to the maintenance of “Public Order”, and therefore, the continued detention of the detenu in each case has not been shown to be justifiable, ...”
Hence, he has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 6
C/SCA/4027/2018 JUDGMENT
person sought to be detained is of such a type that he will continue to violate the laws of the land if he is not preventively detained. So, the commission of isolated laws of infraction of law, not done in an organized or systematic manner, may not be sufficient for the detaining authority to justifiably come to the conclusion that there is no alternate but to preventively detain the person.
Page 4 of 6
C/SCA/4027/2018 JUDGMENT
with the situation, then and only then, preventive detention be taken recourse to.
“Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof ? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense
Page 5 of 6
C/SCA/4027/2018 JUDGMENT
public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.”
VATSAL S. KOTECHA
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detaining authority satisfied the court that there was no alternate to preventive detention despite pending criminal proceedings.
Whether mere registration of a criminal case constitutes credible material to show the detenu is a threat to public order under the P.A.S.A. Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sohanlal Surajram Visnoi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.Referred¶29
Sohanlal Surajram Visnoi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 2004(2)GLR 1051
Rekha V/s. State of Tamil NaduExplained¶40
Rekha V/s. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and another (2011)5 SCC 244 · Who else cites this
Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West BengalExplained¶45
Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 SC 852 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
JIVANSINH @ TOTDIYA DEVISINH RAO
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
S.G. SHAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
