Facts:
The appellant, Arjun S/O Ratan Gaikwad, was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act). The detaining authority based the detention on six cases registered against the appellant by the State Excise Department, alleging involvement in the illicit manufacture of liquor. Additionally, two unnamed witness statements were presented to support the claim that the appellant’s activities caused fear and disruption. The detention order was approved by the Home Department and confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra. The appellant challenged the detention, arguing that the alleged activities did not constitute a threat to public order.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the alleged activities, being limited to the manufacture of illicit liquor, did not amount to a disturbance of public order. He contended that no arrests were made in the six cases and that the witness statements lacked specificity and credibility. He further argued that preventive detention, a severe measure, was unwarranted in this context, as the activities could be addressed through ordinary law enforcement.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent asserted that the appellant’s activities created fear and disruption among residents and caused public harm. They argued that the statements of unnamed witnesses indicated the appellant’s influence and the perceived threat to public order. They justified the preventive detention as necessary to maintain peace and prevent further illegal activities.
Issues:
- Whether the alleged activities of the appellant amounted to a disturbance of public order under the MPDA Act.
- Whether the preventive detention order was justified based on the evidence presented, including the six cases and the unnamed witness statements.
- Whether the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was legally substantiated.
Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between law and order and public order. It reiterated that not every breach of peace constitutes a public order issue. It noted that the appellant’s alleged activities did not demonstrate a direct or substantial impact on public order. The six cases involved illicit liquor manufacturing but lacked evidence of community-wide disturbance. The unnamed witness statements were vague and failed to establish that the appellant’s actions created public fear or disorder.
Principle of the Case:
Preventive detention is an extraordinary measure justified only when an individual’s actions directly and significantly threaten public order. Activities falling within the scope of ordinary law enforcement do not warrant such harsh measures.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention order and the confirmation by the Government of Maharashtra. It directed the immediate release of the appellant unless detained in other cases. It also nullified the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which had upheld the detention order.
Impact on Public Law and Order:
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in protecting individual freedoms against excessive state action. By delineating the boundary between public order and law enforcement, it ensures that preventive detention is used judiciously and only in cases of genuine public threat, thereby safeguarding democratic values.
Case Citation:
Supreme Court of India, Arjun S/O Ratan Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra & Others, Criminal Appeal No. ____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12516 of 2024), Decided on December 11, 2024, Judges: B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan.
