Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under PASA Act for Lack of Material Showing Disturbance to Public Order. The court held that the detention order under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 was invalid as there was no material to indicate how the petitioner's activities disturbed public order or public tranquility.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 65
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sahirkhan Alikhan Malek, through his friend Ashrafkhan Manvarkhan Malek, filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of a detention order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat under Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act). The petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Ahmedabad. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no material available with the detention authority to indicate how public health, public order, or public tranquility was disturbed, and that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind. The learned APP opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was a habitual offender whose activities affected society at large, and that the order was passed to prevent him from acting prejudicially to public order in Surat. The court considered the facts and submissions, and found that the detention order was passed without any material showing disturbance to public order. The court held that the order was passed mechanically and without application of mind, and therefore quashed and set aside the detention order. The petition was allowed.

Headnote

A) Preventive Detention - Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 3(2) - Validity of Detention Order - The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The court held that there was no material on record to indicate how the petitioner's activities disturbed public health, public order, or public tranquility. The order was passed mechanically without application of mind and was therefore quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-6)

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 tranquility.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The detention order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered 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:GUJHC:13682-DB

R/Special Criminal Application No. 1468 of 2026

2026-02-19

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

2026:GUJHC:13682-DB

Sajid Y Kariyaniya for the Applicant, Ms. Monali Bhatt, APP for the Respondent

Sahirkhan Alikhan Malek Thro. Ashrafkhan Manvarkhan Malek

District Magistrate & Ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

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

Remedy Sought

Quashing of detention order dated 22.07.2025 and release of the petitioner

Filing Reason

The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that there was no material to show disturbance to public order and the order was passed mechanically

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 tranquility.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that there was no material to indicate how public health or public order or public tranquility was disturbed, and the order was passed mechanically without application of mind. Respondent argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender and his activities affected society at large, and the order was passed to prevent him from acting prejudicially to public order.

Ratio Decidendi

A preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 cannot be sustained if there is no material on record to indicate how the detenue's activities disturbed public order or public tranquility. The order must be based on proper application of mind and not passed mechanically.

Judgment Excerpts

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. the impugned order is passed without application of mind and prima facie the order is passed mechanically.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Surat. The court heard both sides and delivered judgment on 19.02.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985: Section 3(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under PASA Act for Lack of Material Showing Disturbance to Public Order. The court held that the detention order under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 wa...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation for Injured Police Constable in Motor Accident Claim Under Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act. Permanent Disability of 45% Leads to Recalculation of Compensation Using Multiplier Method, Setting Aside Inadequate T...