Court’s Decision
In Special Criminal Application No. 6786 of 2025, the Gujarat High Court quashed a preventive detention order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, against the petitioner under Section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The Court held that registration of two isolated criminal cases did not justify invoking preventive detention, as they lacked any real or apprehended impact on public order. The Division Bench comprising Justices Ilesh J. Vora and P.M. Raval observed:
“The material on record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either affected adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.”
Facts
The petitioner was detained as a “dangerous person” under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The detention order was based on two FIRs—one dated 07.06.2024 under Sections 324, 323, 504, and 114 IPC registered at Dindoli Police Station, and another dated 09.02.2025 under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) registered at Bhestan Police Station. The detaining authority claimed that the petitioner’s conduct had an adverse impact on public order.
Issues
- Whether the two criminal cases justified preventive detention under the 1985 Act.
- Whether the acts attributed to the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in Section 3(4) of the Act.
- Whether the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority was legally valid.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that his alleged acts pertained only to law and order issues and not to public order. It was contended that mere registration of FIRs could not form the basis for preventive detention unless the conduct had widespread community impact. Moreover, he was already granted bail in both matters, and there was no further material to justify a detention order under the Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that the petitioner was a habitual offender and his continued presence posed a threat to public order. It was submitted that the detaining authority had considered the petitioner’s antecedents and had exercised preventive jurisdiction lawfully to pre-empt further harmful conduct.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered Section 2(c) of the Act defining “dangerous person” and Section 3(4), which limits preventive detention to situations affecting “public order.” It emphasized the distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” stressing that not all criminal acts, even violent ones, disturb the community’s peace and tempo.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322
Held that registration of isolated cases does not by itself warrant preventive detention unless public order is demonstrably affected. - Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10
Drew a clear distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” holding that only community-wide impact justifies preventive detention.
The Court cited paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Supreme Court in Piyush Mehta, reaffirming that even habitual offenders cannot be detained unless their actions create panic, insecurity, or disturb the public tempo.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- No evidence was presented to show the petitioner’s acts disturbed community peace or public order.
- The two FIRs related to isolated incidents with no broader societal impact.
- Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was based on assumptions and lacked factual foundation.
Hence, the Court concluded that the preventive detention was unjustified.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order dated 29.04.2025. The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. The Court held that:
“The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.”
Implications
This ruling reinforces judicial scrutiny of preventive detention powers. It reiterates that detention cannot be based on isolated offences or vague claims of habitual conduct unless there is a demonstrable impact on public order. The judgment provides a strong safeguard against misuse of PASA provisions to detain individuals based on mere criminal antecedents.
Summary of Referred Cases
- Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322
- Held that mere registration of offences without community-wide impact cannot justify preventive detention.
- Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10
- Distinguished “law and order” from “public order,” mandating that only disruptions to community peace justify detention under preventive laws.
