Petitioner challenged detention order under Gujarat PASA Act. Court held FIRs and allegations lacked nexus with public order. Supreme Court precedent cited. Detention order quashed; petitioner freed.
Order dated 3.7.2020 quashed and set aside; detainee 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/8425/2020 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8425 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
==========================================================
| 1 | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
NO |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | NO |
| 3 | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
NO |
| 4 | Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? |
NO |
========================================================== TOHIDKHAN KARIMKHAN PATHAN THROU WIFE REHANA TAOHID PATHAN
Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GIR SOMNATH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR BHARAT VYAS, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 02/12/2020
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/8425/2020 JUDGMENT
3.1 To substantiate his case, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.7165 of 2020, vide order dated 21.7.2020, wherein the detenue therein was involved in 7 offences and his case was considered positively. Hence, learned advocate has requested to consider the case of the petitioner.
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/8425/2020 JUDGMENT
order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.
“Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/8425/2020 JUDGMENT
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 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.”
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
NAIR SMITA V.
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether registration of offences under IPC and GP Act alone establishes breach of public order under the Act.
Whether the detaining authority's satisfaction is valid where no material links the offences to disturbance of public order.
Whether the petitioner falls within the definition of antisocial element under section 2(c) of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West BengalReferred¶27
[AIR 1970 SC 852] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
TOHIDKHAN KARIMKHAN PATHAN THROU WIFE REHANA TAOHID PATHAN
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GIR SOMNATH
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
