The detaining authority is required to demonstrate that the impugned detention is meticulously in accordance with the procedure established by law: Gujarat high court
TITLE: Aayasing, through his Father Sangatsing Versus State of Gujarat
Decided On-: August 19, 2023
12491 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia & Mr. M.R Mengdey
INTRODUCTION-
The current petition is intended to challenge the detention order issued by the respondent – the detaining authority – while acting within the scope of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, section 3(1), by holding the petitioner-detenu, as that term is defined in section 2(c) of the Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The detenu claimed that the impugned order of detention of the detenu needed to be quashed and overturned because the detaining authority had made the decision to detain the detenu solely on the basis of the registration of two FIRs, which is insufficient to bring the detenu’s case within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act. A knowledgeable attorney for the petitioner further argued that any illegal activity that is likely to be committed or is alleged to have been committed cannot be connected to or have anything to do with maintaining public order; at most, it can be considered a violation of law and order.
The learned advocate argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detainee’s involvement in criminal cases had affected and disrupted society’s social fabric, eventually posing a threat to the very survival of people’s normal and routine lives, or that the detainee’s registration of criminal cases had caused chaos throughout society, causing it to become divisive, upsetting the peace. Additionally, it is claimed that the detaining authority hasn’t given the petitioner’s disability any consideration.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The learned AGP for the respondent-State supported the detention order issued by the authority and argued that enough information and evidence discovered during the course of the investigation and provided to the detainee indicate that the detainee is habitually engaging in the activity as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. Taking these facts into account, the learned AGP for the respondent-State argued that the detention order issued by the authority and detention order.
Primarily, it is determined that the subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid, and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and considering the documents and material available on record of the case,
Thus, the Division Bench held that, while verifying the statements of the witnesses and while considering the question of exercising the privilege under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act, has to take independent steps for considering the general background, character, antecedents, criminal tendency etc. while recording subjective satisfaction, apart from placing reliance on the material produced by the sponsoring authority. It is also held the that the detaining authority is required to consider the general background, character, antecedents, criminal tendency and propensity, etc. of the detenue while arriving at the subjective satisfaction. The impugned order does not reflect such aspects. Henceforth it was quashed
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa