Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Insufficient Public Order Material

A bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D. M. Vyas heard a petition challenging a preventive detention order dated 21.01.2026 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985, whereby Champaben Pravinbhai Jadav was detained as a "bootlegger".

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority lacked lawful foundation because the material on record did not show that the detenue's activities had affected, or were likely to affect, the maintenance of public order. The Court emphasised that preventive detention was an "extraordinary power" to be used sparingly and that ordinary criminal remedies should not be circumvented. 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 judgment further relied on the Apex Court’s observation that “the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly.”

Background

The detenue, Champaben Pravinbhai Jadav, was detained pursuant to an order dated 21.01.2026 treating her as a "bootlegger" under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti‑Social Activities Act, 1985. The grounds referred to two FIRs registered at Narol police station for offences under Sections 65(A)(E), 98(2) and 81 of the Prohibition Act, with dates ranging from 12.10.2025 to 03.11.2025. The detention order was executed and the detenue was held in Bhuj Jail.

The petition, filed through the detenue’s nephew, challenged the legality and validity of the detention on grounds that there was no material to show disturbance of public health, public order or public tranquility and that the order was passed mechanically without application of mind. The State opposed the petition, contending that the detenue was a habitual offender whose antecedents justified preventive detention to protect public order.

The High Court examined the detaining order, the material relied upon and the statutory definition of "bootlegger." Applying settled principles on preventive detention, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions (including Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala) which stressed that preventive detention is an exceptional remedy, must be strictly construed and should not substitute ordinary criminal procedure — for instance, by seeking cancellation of bail instead of invoking preventive detention. Finding that the offences relied upon did not, on the available material, bear on maintenance of public order, the Court concluded that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was unsustainable.

Result: the petition was allowed; the detention order dated 21.01.2026 was quashed and the detenue was directed to be set at liberty forthwith if she was not required in any other case. Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details: Case No.: R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1294 of 2026 Case Title: CHAMPABEN PRAVINBHAI JADAV THRU. ASHISH NARESHBHAI KHEMSURYA Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Prajapati (Advocate for Applicant No.1) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chintan Dave, APP (for Respondent No.2)