Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela Through Wife Vaghela Bhumikaba Karansinh Vs State Of Gujarat (2021): Preventive Detention Law Cannot Be Attracted By Solitary Offences

DATE OF JUDGEMENT :
23 August 2021

CORUM:
Hon’ble Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav

PARTIES:
Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela Through Wife Vaghela Bhumikaba Karansinh (Appellants)
State of Gujarat (Respondents)

ISSUES

1. Whether the order of preventive detention valid?
2. Whether the decision of the single judge accurate?

SUMMARY

An order was issued against the appellant for the registering of offenses under multiple sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, and he was detained as a result of the order. Despite a challenge, the Single Judge refused to intervene with the detaining authority’s order. The appellant’s lawyer contended that the detention order should be quashed. The statute and settled law regarding preventive detention must be scrupulously obeyed. The Court was unwilling to interfere with the detaining authorities’ subjective satisfaction, but it decided that the appellant would not be a Bootlegger on a single offense.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Sections 2(b), 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
• Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949

OVERVIEW

• The appellant had filed a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order of preventive detention and the judgment passed by the Single Judge.
• Offenses under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 at Danilimda Police Station on the basis of which Respondent 1 had passed an order of preventive detention after which the appellant was put in jail.
• The detenue challenged the preventive detention order before the Single Judge bench under Article 226 which was confirmed by the judge.
• The High Court’s two-judge bench gave an order on the same and stated that the preventive detention laws have to be followed according to the statute established by law and a person cannot be detained on a solitary offense when there is no apparent public order disruption.

ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT

• The counsel for the detenue had contended that the appellant does not fall within the meaning of ‘Bootlegger’ according to Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
• The counsel contended that no question breach of law and order had arisen, let alone public order.
• The detenue had no past antecedents against him and detention without exhausting alternative remedy has taken the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT

• The counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of the appellant stating that the judgment passed by the single judge was reasoned and the procedure adopted by the detaining authorities was in accordance with.
• The powers conferred on the detaining authorities are to ensure that persons are not allowed to continue with their criminal activities and for ensuring that persons don’t take advantage of the loopholes.
• The order of the detaining authorities needs no interference as confirmed by the single judge.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. When the case was taken to the learned single judge, the bench observed that the power of the detaining authorities of subjective satisfaction does not require any interference which negates the contention of the appellant.
2. The appellants had placed reliance on the cases of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, and Anr. and Vijay alias Ballu Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patni v. State of Gujarat which covers the case of the appellant.
3. Though the Court will be loathed to interfere with the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction reached in the exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Act and the materials placed on record, all other aspects, including those of distancing, will be considered by the Court.
4. The detenue cannot be called a Bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Act on the basis of a solitary offense. In the absence of evidence of a public order disturbance, there was no compelling reason for the detaining authority to exercise its power of preventative custody, and the aggregate facts do not indicate that the detention was called for.
5. The Court relied on the judgment of Aartiben v. Commissioner of Police and observed that it is self-evident that not every act of attack or harm to a single person results in public unrest. There is a disorder but not a public disorder when two individuals quarrel, fight, and assault each other within a house or on the street.
6. Such situations are dealt with by executive authorities using the powers granted to them by ordinary criminal law, but the perpetrators cannot be held on the grounds that they were disrupting public order. Any legal violation impacts order, but before it can be called to affect public order, it must also affect the community or the general public.
7. Preventive detention law must be interpreted differently than typical criminal proceedings in which a person accused of committing a crime is detained or arrested and a remedy is available. The law of preventive detention, on the other hand, must be scrupulously obeyed in accordance with the statute and settled law on the subject.
8. The detaining authority failed to show that the detenue’s claimed antisocial behaviors have or are likely to have a negative impact on the maintenance of public order. The fact that the detenue has been charged with a single offense under the Gujarat Prohibition Act has no influence on the upkeep of public order.

CONCLUSION

As has been reiterated time again by the Courts, the law of preventive detention is not a general criminal law. The charges on detaining a person have to be framed after careful speculation and such rash and negligent behavior attracts more negative impact on the justice system rather than positive.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement