High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Citing Lack Of Material Showing Threat To Public Order

A bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani of the Gujarat High Court heard a challenge to a detention order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Mahisagar, under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contested the legality and validity of preventive detention of Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara on the ground that the detaining authority lacked material to show disturbance to public health, order or tranquility.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. The judges held that reliance on three criminal cases involving alleged bootlegging offences, in which the detenue had been granted regular bail, did not furnish sufficient material to satisfy the statutory threshold that the detenue was acting “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The Court emphasised the exceptional character of preventive detention and the need for strict scrutiny of administrative satisfaction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “9. It is well settled that the provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature. The power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution itself, under Article 22(3)(b). However, this Court has emphasized in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu3 that the power of preventive detention is an exception to Article 21 and, therefore, must be applied as such, as an exception to the main rule and only in rare cases.” The Court further stated that “the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.”

Background The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that there was no material indicating disturbance to public order, public health or public tranquility and that the detaining authority had acted mechanically without proper application of mind. The impugned grounds referred to three criminal cases registered between 10.03.2024 and 30.01.2025 for offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act as reflected in the order; the authority described the detenue as a “bootlegger” under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Act. The State contended that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities adversely affected society and that preventive detention was warranted to preserve public order.

The High Court reviewed the record and held that the offences relied upon did not, on the material before the detaining authority, demonstrate a real threat to public order. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent, including Dhanya M. v. State of Kerala, to reiterate that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure and that ordinary criminal remedies—such as seeking cancellation of bail—ought not to be circumvented by invoking preventive detention when those remedies sufficed. Applying those principles, the Court found the material inadequate and concluded that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was not legally sustainable. The petition was allowed; the detention order dated 21.01.2026 was quashed and the detenue was directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.

Case Details: Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application No. 1747 of 2026 Case Title: Rameshbhai Dhulabhai Katara thro. Bhalabhai Dhulabhai Katara Versus State of Gujarat & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vidhi V. Sharma (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Raval, Additional Public Prosecutor