The difference between “law and order” and “public order” is completely unknown to state authorities: Gujarat high court
TITLE: Dhruv Sureshbhai Sarvaiya Versus State of Gujarat
Decided On-: August 18, 2023
13117 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia & Mr. M.R Mengdey
INTRODUCTION-
The petition in question challenges the respondent-detaining authority’s decision to detain the petitioner-detenu, as that term is defined in section 2(c) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 while acting within the scope of the authority granted by that section.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Detenu argued that the detaining authority should be held accountable for passing the contested order of detention solely on the basis of the registration of three FIRs for the offences listed in (i) Sections 385, 323, 504, 506(2), 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, (ii) Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the Penal Code of 1860, Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, Sections 323, 324, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 143, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively, cannot by themselves bring the case of the detenu within the scope of the definition under Section 2(c) of the Act.
Detenu argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detainees’ 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 detainees had thrown the entire social system into chaos by registering criminal cases, causing Additionally, it is claimed that the detaining authority has not given the petitioner’s overall release on bail any thought.
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. 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, in as much 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
Given the circumstances, it cannot be said that the accusations made against the detenu are relevant to bringing them within the purview of section 2(c) of the Act. Hon’ble Court has also observed that the state authorities are completely unaware of the distinction between “law and order” and “public order.”
The personal liberty protected by Article 21 is so sacred and ranks so highly on the scale of constitutional values, that the detaining authority must demonstrate that the impugned detention is meticulously in accordance with the procedure stipulated by law. We have also seen instances where, in a single case of prohibition, the PASA provisions are used, the detention order is not carried out, and the PASA provisions are used even when the detainee has been granted bail. Thus, it would seem that such orders are frequently carried out in an effort to thwart bail orders.
“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