Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Finding Insufficient Material To Affect Public Order

A division bench of Justices N.S. Sanjay Gowda and D. M. Vyas heard a challenge to a preventive detention order dated 15 January 2026 issued by the District Magistrate, Vav‑Tharad, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985, which detained the applicant as a “bootlegger”. The petition contested the legality and validity of the detention order on the ground that no material showed disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the order was passed mechanically.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the material on record was insufficient to satisfy that the detenue’s activities either had affected or were likely to affect the maintenance of public order. The Court observed that reliance on a single criminal case, in which the detenue had been granted regular bail, did not justify preventive detention and that ordinary criminal remedies should have been invoked instead. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that, the material available on record are not sufficient for holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.” The bench further relied on Supreme Court dicta emphasising that preventive detention is an “extraordinary power” which “must be used sparingly” and is an “exception to Article 21”.

Background

The detenue, Manvarsinh S/o Arjansinh Chauhan, was detained as a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑social Activities Act, 1985 by order dated 15/01/2026. The grounds of detention referenced a single criminal case registered on 06/10/2025 at Tharad Police Station under provisions of the Prohibition Act. The petitioner, through counsel, argued absence of any material showing disturbance of public order, that the order was passed without application of mind and that the detenue was already on regular bail in the related criminal proceedings. The State’s advocate countered that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society and that the detaining authority had considered antecedents before arriving at satisfaction.

The High Court examined the detention order, reproduced the statutory definition of “bootlegger” under Section 2(b), and considered Supreme Court precedents including Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala, which reiterated that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and that where criminal courts had granted bail, the State should have sought cancellation of bail rather than resorting to detention. The Court concluded that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction lacked a lawful basis when premised on a solitary case that did not show adverse impact on public order. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 15/01/2026 was quashed and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details: Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 914 of 2026 Case Title: MANVARSINH S/O ARJANSINH CHAUHAN THROUGH INDUBHA VINUBHA RATHOD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Karan Y. Vyas (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Krina Calla, APP