Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
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
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT
Kishan, S/o. Rameshbhai Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
(ILESH J. VORA, J.)
1. The petitioner herein namely Kishan s/o. Rameshbhai Rathod came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1985).
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Kunal S. Shah and Mr. Aditya Jadeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of detention has no nexus to the “public order”, but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration of the offence cannot be said to have either affected adversely or likely to affect adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act of 1985 and therefore, where the offences alleged to hav
Preventive detention requires a clear demonstration that the individual's activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention cannot be justified solely on allegations that do not demonstrate a clear threat to public order, distinguishing it from mere law and order issues.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear link between the alleged activities and public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Act requires activities to adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus between alleged activities and public order; mere law and order disturbances are insufficient.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires activities to affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires that activities adversely affect public order, not merely law and order.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence that a person's activities adversely affect public order, not just law and order.
Preventive detention requires activities to adversely affect public order, not merely law and order; mere criminal acts are insufficient for detention under the Act.
Preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act requires a clear connection to public order, not merely law and order.
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