High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order, Finds Material Insufficient to Affect Public Order

A bench of Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice D. M. Vyas heard a challenge to a preventive detention order dated 16.12.2025 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, by which the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, detained Prithvi @ Lalo Nareshbhai Mehta as a “dangerous person” under Section 2(c) of the Act.

The Court allowed the petition, quashed the detention order and directed that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case, holding that the material before the detaining authority was insufficient to sustain a subjective satisfaction that the detenue’s activities were “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.” The Court noted that preventive detention is an extraordinary power and must be used sparingly, and relied on recent Supreme Court authority to hold that ordinary criminal remedies should be preferred where available. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 Nadu 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 bench further observed that “the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.”

Background

The detenue challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Police Commissioner on 16.12.2025, which described him as a “dangerous person” under the Act of 1985. The detention grounds referred to two criminal cases registered between 15.09.2025 and 21.11.2025 for offences noted in the order, and relied upon the statutory definition of “dangerous person” under Section 2(c). The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was no material to show disturbance to public health, public order or public tranquility and that the order appeared to be passed without application of mind. The State opposed the petition, contending that the detenue was a habitual offender whose activities affected society and that the detaining authority had lawfully considered antecedents and past activities.

On examining the record, the High Court noted that the offences cited did not, on the material before the authority, demonstrate an adverse effect on public order; the Court recorded that the detenue had been granted bail in the criminal proceedings relied upon by the authority. The bench referred to Supreme Court precedents (including Dhaya M. v. State of Kerala) emphasising that preventive detention is an extraordinary remedy and that the State should, where appropriate, pursue cancellation of bail or other ordinary criminal remedies rather than resort to preventive detention. Concluding that the material on record was not sufficient to justify preventive detention, the Court held the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction to be unlawful and quashed the impugned order dated 16.12.2025. The detenue was directed to be released 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. 466 of 2026 Case Title: PRITHVI @ LALO NARESHBHAI MEHTA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): MS. ALKA B VANIYA (6945) For the Respondent(s): MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP