Gujarat High Court Quashes Detention Order Under PASA for Lack of Material Showing Disturbance to Public Order. Preventive detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 set aside as mere registration of FIRs does not establish that the petitioner's activities affected public order or public health.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Devendrasinh Dhagalsinh Rajput, through his wife Rekha Devendrasinh Rajput, filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a detention order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA). The petitioner contended that there was no material available with the detention authority to show how public health, public order, or public tranquility was disturbed. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and mechanically. The petitioner was detained in Bhuj Jail. The learned APP opposed the petition, arguing that the detenue was a habitual offender and his activities affected society at large. The court, after hearing both sides, found that the detention order was based solely on registration of FIRs without any material indicating that the petitioner's activities disturbed public order or public health. The court held that the order was passed mechanically and without application of mind, and therefore quashed and set aside the detention order. The court directed that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Headnote

A) Preventive Detention - Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 3(2) - Public Order - The detention order was challenged on the ground that there was no material to indicate disturbance to public order or public health. The court held that mere registration of FIRs does not justify preventive detention unless the activities affect public order. The order was passed mechanically without application of mind. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the detention order under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 was valid when there was no material to show that the petitioner's activities disturbed public order or public health.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Law Points

  • Preventive detention
  • Public order vs. law and order
  • Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act
  • 1985
  • Section 3(2)
  • Lack of material
  • Mechanical exercise of power
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (02) 1131

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1664 of 2026

2026-02-18

N.S.Sanjay Gowda, D. M. Vyas

2026:GUJHC:13205-DB

Mr. Kuldeep H. Sodhatar, Mr. Chintan Dave

Devendrasinh Dhagalsinh Rajput Thro. Rekha Devendrasinh Rajput

State of Gujarat & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to preventive detention order under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985

Remedy Sought

Quashing of detention order dated 21.01.2026 and release of petitioner

Filing Reason

Detention order passed without material showing disturbance to public order or public health

Issues

Whether the detention order under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 was valid when there was no material to show that the petitioner's activities disturbed public order or public health.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that there was no material to indicate disturbance to public order or public health, and the order was passed mechanically without application of mind. Respondent argued that the detenue was a habitual offender and his activities affected society at large.

Ratio Decidendi

Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 requires material to show that the activities of the detenue affect public order or public health. Mere registration of FIRs without such material renders the detention order invalid and passed mechanically without application of mind.

Judgment Excerpts

Learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate as to how the public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed in any manner. Thus, in absence of any such material on record, the order of detention ought not have been passed.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 18.02.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985: Section 3(2)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit, Upholds Retrospective Application of Amendment Deleting Section 23 of Hindu Succession Act. Female Heirs Entitled to Partition of Dwelling House as Amendment Removes Disability and Applies ...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Detention Order Under PASA for Lack of Material Showing Disturbance to Public Order. Preventive detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 set aside as mere registration of FIRs does not establis...