TITLE: Vishnudatt Shukla Versus State of Gujarat
Decided On-: August 19, 2023
12622 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. A.S Supehia & Mr. M.R Mengdey
INTRODUCTION-
The current petition is intended to challenge a detention order issued on July 11, 2023 by the respondent, the detaining authority, in the course of exercising its authority under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 by holding the petitioner, who is a detenue as defined by Section 2(b) of the Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Detenu claimed that the impugned order of detention of the detenu required to be quashed and set aside because the detaining authority had made the decision to hold the detenu solely on the basis of the registration of three FIRs for offences under Sections 379(a) and 114 of the IPC, Sections 379(b) and 114 of the Penal Code, and Sections 420, 120(b) and 114 of the IPC, respectively. The detenu case cannot be used by itself to meet the requirements 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. Additionally, other than witness statements and the filing of the aforementioned FIRs, there is no other substantial information on file that links the alleged anti-social behaviour of the detainee and does not qualify as a violation of public order. The learned advocate further argued that it was impossible to conclude from the facts of the case that the detenu’s involvement in criminal cases had affected and disrupted the social fabric of society, eventually posing a threat to the very survival of people’s normal and routine lives, or that the detenu’s registration of criminal cases had thrown the entire social apparatus into disarray and made it difficult for people to go about their daily lives in a normal and routine manner. Additionally, it is claimed that the detaining authority is unaware that the petitioner has been released on bail for all of his or her offences.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
AGP for the respondent was learned Considering the circumstances of the case, the detaining authority properly issued the order of detention, and the detention order deserves to be upheld by this Co. The State supported the detention order passed by the authority and argued that sufficient information and evidence discovered during the course of the investigation, which was also supplied to the detenu, indicate that the detenu is in the habit of engaging in the activity as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.
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. It appears that the state authorities frequently disregard the aforementioned settled principle of law and pass orders without understanding that human freedom is unalienable and cannot be restricted or curtailed unless the detention is absolutely necessary and the detainee’s actions have an adverse impact on “public order.”
The authorities must take into account the characteristics of Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution when approving detention orders. Article 22 must be understood as an exception to Article 21 and can only be used in exceptional and rare circumstances. It cannot be read in isolation. The personal liberty protected by Article 21 is so sacred and ranks so highly on the scale of constitutional values, according to the Apex Court and this Court, that the detaining authority must demonstrate that the impugned detention is meticulously in accordance with the procedure stipulated by law. The impugned order of detention issued by the respondent’s detaining authority is therefore revoked and reversed as a result of the petition’s approval.
“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
