25 July 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The High Court has allowed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, quashing the preventive detention order against Vijay Babubhai Gulabdas Desai. The petitioner, detained as a "bootlegger" under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act), successfully argued that his alleged activities constituted a mere law and order issue, not a threat to "public order," which is a prerequisite for such detention.

Background of the Detention:

Vijay Desai was preventively detained via an order dated July 8, 2025, issued by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad. The detention order was based on two recent criminal cases registered against him:

1. An offense under various sections of the Prohibition Act dated January 12, 2024, at Vatva G.I.D.C. Police Station.
2. Another offense under the Prohibition Act dated July 2, 2025, at D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad.

In both of these cases, the petitioner had been granted bail. The detaining authority's order asserted that the petitioner's activities as a bootlegger were "adverse or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order" as defined under the PASA Act.

The Petitioner's Argument:

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Yash K. Dave, contended that the two criminal cases, while being infractions of law, did not have any nexus to "public order." He argued that the activities fell squarely under the category of "law and order" issues. Preventive detention, he submitted, is an extreme measure reserved for activities that affect the community or the public at large, not for purely local or individual-specific breaches of peace.

The State's Counter-Argument:

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. LB Dabhi, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was a "habitual offender" and his activities had a wider societal impact. He contended that the detaining authority had correctly considered the petitioner's antecedents and past activities to prevent him from acting in a manner "prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" in Ahmedabad.

Court's Analysis and Precedent:

The Court carefully considered the submissions and the material on record. It determined that the central issue was whether the detention order, based on the two prohibition cases, was legally sustainable.

The Court held that the authority had wrongly arrived at its "subjective satisfaction" that the petitioner's activities were a threat to public order. The two offenses, in the Court's opinion, did not have the requisite bearing on the maintenance of public order.

To support its conclusion, the Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, which, in turn, referenced the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" as established in Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal.

Quoting from these precedents, the Court highlighted that not every infraction of the law qualifies as a disturbance of public order. The distinction lies in the scale of the disturbance: a "public disorder" affects the entire community, while a "law and order" issue is typically of a "purely local significance which primarily injure[s] specific individuals." The Court noted that the petitioner's alleged offenses, while punishable, did not seem to have "created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public of the area in question."

Ruling and Immediate Release:

For the reasons stated, the Court concluded that the material on record was not sufficient to justify the claim that the petitioner's activities had, or were likely to, adversely affect the maintenance of public order. As a result, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed to be illegal, invalid, and not in accordance with the law.

The Court accordingly allowed the petition, quashing the detention order dated July 8, 2025. It directed that Vijay Babubhai Gulabdas Desai be set at liberty forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.