New Delhi: The Gujarat High Court Wednesday came to the rescue of a man who was branded a “dangerous person” and detained last month when he apparently tried to obtain information on the trains being arranged for migrant labourers.
Justice Gita Gopi quashed the order, saying the authorities had failed to show how the activities of the petitioner, Chikubha Jayrajsinh Jadeja, “adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order”.
“The alleged activities of the detenu cannot be termed as dangerous to the public at large. As a result, the grounds for passing such a detention order cannot be sustained and therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside,” the court ruled.
According to the petition, an FIR was registered against Jadeja on 10 May, under Sections 188 (disobeying order promulgated by a public servant) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, along with provisions of the Disaster Management Act 2005 and Epidemic Diseases Act 1897.
On the basis of this FIR, he was declared a “dangerous person” under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 and was detained the next day. He was kept in the Lajpore jail at Surat.
Quashing this order, the court observed, “All the statements recorded during the course of investigation are general in nature and therefore, the alleged incidents wherein the detenu was involved, have no adverse effect prejudicial to the maintenance of public order disturbing the peace of the society. Hence, the detenu cannot be branded him as a “dangerous person” within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of PASA Act.”
As per the Act, a “dangerous person” is someone who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, during a period of three successive years, habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959. These offences include murder, dowry death, theft, extortion, dacoity, and several other offences affecting the human body and offences against property.
Also read: Identify migrants who want to go home, make travel arrangements within 15 days: SC to govts
‘Off-shoot of political vendetta’
The petition, filed through advocate Virat G. Popat, submitted that Jadeja is “politically active”, being a Congress ward member and has been helping in arranging food and shelter for migrants.
It submitted that the FIR was filed against him after a commotion broke out between the migrants and police at the Vavdi checkpost on 10 May, where he had gone to ascertain the timings of the trains scheduled for transporting migrant labourers to their native states.
Jadeja called the FIR “sheer abuse of process of law” and an “off-shoot of political vendetta”.
According to the court order, the government lawyer submitted that Jadeja had been spreading rumours and indulged in illegal activities.
The court, however, ruled that he could not have been branded as a “dangerous person” under the 1985 Act, observing that “it is difficult to conclude that the alleged incidents have any direct bearing on public order or it may be termed as an activity by which the petitioner could be branded as a habitual offender”.
It, therefore, allowed the petition and that directed Jadeja be released.
Also read: Don’t share information on allegations, evidence against Delhi riots accused: HC to police
Other than quashing the previous order whereby he was detained, what orders were passed against the police personnel who illegally detained an innocent person for so many days. What is the worth of this gentleman’s honour, can the honourable court calculate. You fight for a social cause and you end up in jail with serious allegations leveled against you. What then happens or what can then be the fate of social and humanitarian acts and efforts. Nobody will venture out to help those in distress or under duress. Society will turn around to put on a monstrous look and become unworthy of mingling. These things are sensitive for any culture, society or nation and the courts ought to look at any illegal detention from this perspective and then pass an appropriate order, so that the authorities wake up to become more conscientious about the rights and liberties of each and every individual. To detain somebody arbitrarily on flimsy grounds is tantamount to murdering enterprise, industry and energy. How can societies and individuals then evolve and become more cooperative, interactive, responsible and enthusiastic towards others who may be in need of help and assistance. These are very basic and core issues that have to be addressed by the judiciary .
(Md.Israil)