Preventive detention and public order: vague grounds and lack of definite particulars could not sustain detention.

Article 32 jurisdiction remained available to challenge preventive detention even though a representation was pending before the Advisory Board, because constitutional safeguards may be examined independently of that proceeding. Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 could not rest on allegations of bootlegging, force and intimidation unless the material showed a definite adverse effect on public order, and the grounds and witness statements were not sufficiently specific. The vague and general allegations also impaired the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5). The preventive detention was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite a representation being pending before the Advisory Board; (ii) whether the detention order could be sustained where the grounds alleged bootlegging, use of force, and fear, but did not establish an adverse impact on public order or furnish sufficiently definite particulars.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was maintainable despite a representation being pending before the Advisory Board

Analysis: The pendency of a representation before the Advisory Board does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 when the detention is challenged as infringing constitutional safeguards. The right to make an effective representation includes the right to be furnished adequate particulars of the grounds, and that constitutional challenge can be examined independently of the Advisory Board's proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the detention order could be sustained where the grounds alleged bootlegging, use of force, and fear, but did not establish an adverse impact on public order or furnish sufficiently definite particulars

Analysis: Under section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, detention on the footing of bootlegging is justified only when the activities adversely affect or are likely to affect public order. The material relied upon showed alleged liquor offences and general accusations of intimidation, but did not disclose concrete incidents demonstrating a disturbance of public order as distinct from law and order. The allegations and witness statements were also found to be vague and general, impairing the detenu's constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: Preventive detention was set aside because the alleged activities were not shown to affect public order and the grounds lacked the required specificity.

Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention under the Act can be justified only when the detenu's activities are shown, on definite material, to adversely affect public order, and vague or general grounds that do not permit an effective constitutional representation cannot support detention.

---