[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] R/[CASE NUMBER] FORAPPROVALANDSIGNATURE: HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY] 1 WhetherReportersofLocalPapersmaybeallowed toseethejudgment? 2 TobereferredtotheReporterornot? 3 WhethertheirLordshipswishtoseethefaircopyof thejudgment? 4 Whetherthiscaseinvolvesasubstantialquestionof law as to the interpretation of the [ACT]? [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] Appearance: MRSSSAIYED(3690)forthePETITIONER(s)No.1 MRVENUGOPALPATELAGPfortheRESPONDENT(s)No.3 RULESERVEDBYDS(65)fortheRESPONDENT(s)No.1,2 CORAM: HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICE[ENTITY] Date:05/09/2018 ORALJUDGMENT
1. Heardlearnedadvocatesappearingfortherespectiveparties.
2. Thepresentpetitionisdirectedagainstorderofdetentiondated 26.06.2018passedbytherespondent-detainingauthorityinexercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of [CASE NUMBER] AntiSocialActivitiesAct,1985(forshort"theAct")bydetainingthe petitioner-detenueasdefinedundersection2(b)oftheAct.
2.1. Thecaseofthepetitioneristhatonaccountofthecomplaints narratedintheimpugnedorderandthepetitionerhasbeendetained vide order dated 26.06.2018. Therefore, considering the averments madeinthepetition,theCourton10.07.2018waspleasedtoadmit thepetitionandthereafterithascomeupforfinalhearingbeforethis CourtwhereinlearnedadvocateMr.[ENTITY] petitionerandlearnedAGPMr.VenugopalPatelhasrepresentedthe respondent-State.
3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detentionimpugnedinthispetitiondeservestobequashedandset aside on the ground of registration of four offences under [SECTION] byitselfcannotbringthecaseofthedetenuewithinthepurviewof definitionundersection2(b)oftheAct.Further,learnedadvocatefor the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or allegedtohavebeencarriedout,asalleged,cannothaveanynexusor bearingwiththemaintenanceofpublicorderandatthemost,itcan besaidtobebreachoflawandorder. Further,exceptstatementof witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and [ENTITY] drawn in pursuanceoftheinvestigation,nootherrelevantandcogentmaterial isonrecordconnectingallegedantisocialactivityofthedetenuewith breach of public order. Learned advocate for thepetitioner further submitsthatitisnotpossibletoholdonthebasisofthefactsofthe presentcasethatactivityofthedetenuewithrespecttothecriminal caseshadaffectedeventempoofthesocietycausingthreattothevery existenceofnormalandroutinelifeofpeopleatlargeorthatonthe basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatusindisorder,makingitdifficultforwholesystemtoexistas [CASE NUMBER] asystemgovernedbyruleoflawbydisturbingpublicorder.
4. LearnedAGPfortherespondentStatesupportedthedetention orderpassedbytheauthorityandsubmittedthatsufficientmaterial andevidencewasfoundduringthecourseofinvestigation,whichwas also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulgingintotheactivityasdefinedundersection2(b)oftheActand consideringthefactsofthecase,thedetainingauthorityhasrightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheldbythisCourt.
5. Havingheardlearnedadvocatesforthepartiesandconsidering thefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,itappearsthatthesubjective satisfactionarrivedatbythedetainingauthoritycannotbesaidtobe legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences allegedintheFIR/scannothaveanybaringonthepublicorderas requiredunder the Act andother relevant penallaws aresufficient enoughtotakecareofthesituationandthattheallegationsashave beenlevelledagainstthedetenuecannotbesaidtobegermaneforthe purposeofbringingthedetenuewithinthemeaningofsection2(b)of theAct. Unlessanduntil,thematerialistheretomakeoutacase thatthepersonhasbecomeathreatandmenacetotheSocietysoas to distur2(c)b the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatusisinperildisturbingpublicorderattheinstanceofsuch person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaningofsection2(b)oftheAct.Exceptgeneralstatements,thereis nomaterialonrecordwhichshowsthatthedetenueisactinginsuch amanner,whichisdangeroustothepublicorder.
6. Further, The essential concept of the preventive detention is thatthedetentionofapersonisnottopunishhimforsomethinghe hasdonebuttopreventhimfromdoingit.Thebasisofdetentionis [CASE NUMBER] the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihoodofthedetenuactinginamannersimilartohispastacts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal convictionontheotherhandisforanactalreadydonewhichcanonly bepossiblebyatrialandlegalevidence.Thereisnoparallelbetween theprosecutioninaCourtoflawandadetentionorderundertheAct. Oneisapunitiveactionandtheotherisapreventiveact.Inonecase apersonispunishedtoproveonproofofhisguiltandthestandardis proof beyond the reasonable doubt whereas in the preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessaryforreasonsmentionedinsection3oftheActtoprevent.
7. Thepowerofpreventivedetentionisqualitativelydifferentfrom punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised inreasonable anticipation.It may or maynotrelatetoanoffence.Itisnotaparallelproceeding.Itdoesnot overlapwithprosecutionevenifitreliesoncertainfactsforwhich prosecutionmaybelaunchedormayhavebeenlaunched.Anorderof preventivedetention,maybemadebeforeorduringprosecution.An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecutionandinanticipationorafterdischargeorevenacquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
8. TheSupremeCourtonseveraloccasionsexaminedtheconcepts of "law and order" and "public Order". Immediately after the [ACT] came into force, a [ACT] Bench of the Supreme CourtinthecaseofBrijBhushan&Anotherv.TheStateofDelhi, (1950) SCR 605 dealt with a case pertaining to public order. The court observed that "public order" may well be paraphrased in the [CASE NUMBER] contextas"publictranquility".
8.1 Another celebrated [ACT] Bench judgment of the SupremeCourtisinthecaseof [ENTITY]v.TheStateof Madras,(1950)SCR594. [ENTITY], [ENTITY],aprinter, publisherandeditorofweeklyjournalinEnglishcalledCrossRoads printed and published in Bombay was detained under the [ACT]. The detention order was challenged directly in the Supreme Court of India by filing a writ petitionunderArticle32ofthe[ACT].Theallegationwasthat thedetenucirculateddocumentstodisturbthepublictranquilityand tocreatedisturbanceofpublicorderandtranquility.
TheSupremeCourtobserved: " `Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that state of tranquillity which prevails among the membersofapoliticalsocietyasaresultofinternalregulations enforcedbytheGovernmentwhichtheyhaveestablished it must be taken that `public safety'is used as apart of the widerconceptofpublicorder "
9. Thedistinctionbetween"publicorder"and"lawandorder"has been carefully defined in a [ACT] Bench judgment of the [PRECEDENT][ENTITY], J. by giving various illustrations clearly defined the "publicorder"and"lawandorder".Relevantportionofthejudgment readsthus:
" Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of disorderoronlysome?Theanswertothisservestodistinguish "public order" from "law and order" because the latter undoubtedlytakesinallofthem.Publicorderifdisturbed,must leadtopublicdisorder.Everybreachofthepeacedoesnotlead topublicdisorder.Whentwodrunkardsquarrelandfightthereis disorderbutnotpublicdisorder.Theycanbedealtwithunder [CASE NUMBER] thepowerstomaintainlawandorderbutcannotbedetainedon thegroundthattheyweredisturbingpublicorder.Supposethat thetwofighterswereofrivalcommunitiesandoneofthemtried toraisecommunalpassions.Theproblemisstilloneoflawand order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affectsorderbutbeforeitcanbesaidtoaffectpublicorder, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarilysufficient foractionunder the [ACT] but disturbances whichsubvertthe publicorderare.ADistrict MagistrateisentitledtotakeactionunderRule30(l)(b)toprevent subversionofpublicorderbutnotinaidofmaintenanceoflaw andorderunderordinarycircumstances.
Itwillthusappearthatjustas"publicorder"intherulingsof thisCourt (earliercited)wassaidtocomprehend disordersof less gravity than those affecting "security of State", "law and order" also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public order". One has to imagine three concentric circles.Lawandorderrepresentsthelargestcirclewithinwhich is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circlerepresentssecurityofState.Itistheneasytoseethatan actmayaffectlawandorderbutnotpublicorderjustasanact mayaffectpublicorderbutnotsecurityoftheState "
10. [ENTITY]
[ENTITY] and others, reported in [PRECEDENT], the SupremeCourtmadethefollowingobservations:
"Thebasisuponwhichthepetitionerhasbeendetained inthe instantcaseisthatherobbedoneKumaratthepointofknifea sumofRs.1000/.Anydisorderlybehaviourofapersoninthe public or commission of a criminal offence is bound, to some extent,affectthepeaceprevailinginthelocalityanditmayalso affectlawandorderbutthesameneednotaffectmaintenance ofpublicorder.UnderthedefinitionsintheActitisstatedthat the case of 'Goonda' the acts prejudicial to public order are 'whenheisengaged,orismakingpreparationsforengaging,in anyofhisativitiesasagoondawhichaffectadversely,orare likelytoaffectadversely,themaintenanceofpublicorder'.The questionwhetheramanhas onlycommittedabreachoflaw andorderorhasactedinamannerlikelytocausedisturbance ofthepublicorderisaquestionofdegreeandtheextentofthe [CASE NUMBER] reachoftheactuponthesociety;thatasolitaryassaultonone individualcanhardlybesaidtodisturbpublicpeaceorplace public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purviewoftheActprovidingforpreventivedetention."
11. Thus,fromthevariousdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtreferred toabove,itcouldeasilybesaidthatthedetainingauthorityhasfailed to substantiate that the alleged antisocial activities of the detenu affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It is true that there is a very thin line between the questionoflawandordersituationandapublicordersituation,and sometimes,theactsofapersonrelatingtolawandordersituation canturnintoaquestionofpublicordersituation.Whatisdecisivefor determining the connection of ground of detention with the maintenance of public order, the object of detention, is not an intrinsicqualityoftheactbutratheritslatentpotentiality.Therefore, for determining whether the ground of detention is relevant for the purposesofpublicorderornot,merelyanobjectivetestbasedonthe intrinsicqualityofanactwouldnotbeasafeguide.Thepotentialityof the act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances,posteriorandanterior.Thedetenumaybepunished fortheoffencewhichhasbeenregisteredagainsthimbut,surely,the actsconstitutingtheoffencecannotbesaidtohaveaffectedtheeven tempoofthelifeofthecommunity.
12. Thus,intheoverallviewofthematter,Iamconvincedthatthe detentionofthepetitionerisnotinaccordancewithlawandtheorder ofdetentiondeservestobequashedandsetaside.
13. Inviewofabove,Iaminclinedtoallowthispetition,because simplicitorregistrationofFIR/sbyitselfcannothaveanynexuswith thebreachofmaintenanceofpublicorderandtheauthoritycannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent [CASE NUMBER] materialexistsforinvokingpowerundersection3(2)oftheAct.Inthe result,thepresentpetitionisherebyallowedandtheimpugnedorder ofdetentionNo.DCB/MAG/PASA/46/2018dated26.06.2018passed by the respondent - detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not requiredinanyothercase.
14. Ruleismadeabsoluteaccordingly.Directserviceispermitted.
([ENTITY],J) /phalguni/