Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
IJV, SNB
PARAS PREMSINGH SAVALJI VANJARA THROUGH PREMSINGH SAVALJI VANJARA – 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 07.03.2025, 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
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 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.
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 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.
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