Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ
HARESHBHAI DEVENBHAI JUSETA (SINDHI) THRO TINA VIJAYKUMAR AIDASANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.)
1. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City dated 31.01.2025, whereby the petitioner is detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act , 1985.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, mere filing of FIR against the petitioner itself is no ground, for the detaining authority, to arrive at the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is further submitted that, no legally sustainable satisfaction is recorded by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order and therefore the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Authorities has supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority and has submitted that the impugned order is based on sufficient material and the detaining authority has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the activi
The court held that filing of FIRs alone does not justify preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, requiring a clear demonstration of activities prejudicial to....
Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act requires clear evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely the existence of FIRs.
Preventive detention requires a clear connection to public order; mere disturbance of law and order is insufficient for detention under the Act.
Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act requires clear justification that activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs.
The court ruled that mere FIRs do not justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act if the activities do not affect public order.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely allegations of law and order disturbances.
Preventive detention requires substantive justification beyond mere FIRs; mere disturbance of law and order does not suffice for detention under the Act.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence that activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely law and order disturbances.
Preventive detention requires a clear distinction between law and order versus public order; mere FIRs do not justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act.
Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act requires substantial evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely the existence of FIRs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article