Merely Because A Person Is A Bootlegger, He Cannot Be Detained Under Gujarat Prevention Of Anti- Social Activities Act: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court observed that merely because a person is a bootlegger he cannot be detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act unless his activities as a bootlegger adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order.
The Court was hearing a Special Criminal Application challenging the legality and validity of the detention order.
The bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice SV Pinto observed, “…merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in sub- section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.”
Advocate Kunal S Shah appeared for the Appellant and APP Jay Mehta appeared for the Respondent.
In the present case, the Petitioner was preventively detained by the detention order passed by the Police Commissioner as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985.
The Court said that on the basis of a prohibition case, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ and according to the Court the offences under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2), 81 and 116(B) registered against the petitioner under the Prohibition Law do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police (1989) and quoted, “…we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act."
The Court said that the detaining authority has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti- social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Accordingly, the Court said that the offences or the allegations in the present case cannot be said to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public of the area in question giving rise to the question of maintenance of public order.
Finally, the Court overturned the detention order.
Cause Title: Alpesh v. State of Gujarat
