US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
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
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
IJV, SNB
YASHWANT @ ASHOK LALJIBHAI MULJIBHAI SOLANKI THROUGH SURYABEN LALJIBHAI MULJIBHAI SOLANKI – 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 06.03.2025, 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 activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to th
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.
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.
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.
The court ruled that mere disturbance of law and order does not justify preventive detention under the Act, emphasizing the need for a legally sustainable basis for such orders.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of activities being prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs, as established by the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence demonstrating that a person's activities are prejudicial to public order, not merely based on FIRs.
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of activities prejudicial to public order, not merely the filing of FIRs.
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.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.