Gujarat High Court Dismisses Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari's Plea Against PASA Detention

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Maulana Mufti Salman Azhari challenging his detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA).

The Court ruled that despite Azhari's claims of not being given a proper opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the detention order was valid.

The division bench comprising Justices Ilesh J Vora and Vimal K Vyas observed, “As discussed, the contentions that proper opportunity to make representation as mandated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, has not been given, having no any merits, as despite of language barrier the petitioner made effective representation through his brother as well as social worker and therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, merely, non-supplying the documents and grounds of detention in the language understandable to him, would not vitiate his detention order.”

Azhari had filed the petition challenging the validity of the order of detention dated February 2024, issued by the District Magistrate of Junagadh. The District Magistrate's office received a proposal from the Crime Branch, Junagadh, and considered two FIRs registered against Azhari, leading to the subjective satisfaction that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The detention order was executed on February 22, 2024, and Azhari was detained in Vadodara Central Jail. He was provided with copies of the grounds of detention and all other materials, including witness statements, which formed the basis for the authority's satisfaction.

The order of detention was approved and confirmed by the State Government on February 22, 2024. Upon reference to the Advisory Board, the Board, on March 15, 2024, found sufficient cause for the detention order and did not interfere. Notably, Azhari's brother, Mohammad Zuber Mohammad Razvi, made a detailed representation on February 28, 2024, addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar.

Social worker Imtyaz Pathan also made a representation to the same authority. After examining the grounds mentioned in the representations, the State Government rejected them on March 11, 2024, and informed Azhari in writing on April 1, 2024.

Court's Observations on Petitioner's Activities and Grounds for Detention

The Court observed that on 31.01.2024, Azhari, being a cleric, was invited to address a gathering at Junagadh, Gujarat State. The organisers had obtained permission from the local government to organise a de-addiction program at the school ground in Junagadh. On that same day, at noon, the petitioner addressed a public gathering at Samakhayani, Kutch.

The Court noted that the grounds of detention alleged that Azhari had a habit of giving provocative and inflammatory speeches intending to incite people belonging to the minority community. This allegedly created animosity and enmity between communities, leading to a breakdown of social harmony.

The Court highlighted that the authority, while making the detention order, was satisfied that people who wanted to file complaints were living in fear, believing that those influenced by Azhari would not spare them.

The Detaining Authority had taken into account the circulation of Azhari's speeches on social media platforms like YouTube and private channels managed by private individuals. The Authority was satisfied that these activities promoted enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion and were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony and national integration.

The Court opined that the activities of public speeches and the material collected were sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there was a disturbance of tranquility and harmony in public life. The detention order was based on requisite satisfaction and proper application of mind to all relevant circumstances.

The Court found no evidence that the power was exercised for an improper purpose or without independence. It was noted that the speeches could lead to public disorder, given their potential repercussions.

For the reasons recorded, the Court held that the material available on record in the present case was sufficient and adequate for holding that the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenue had either affected adversely or were likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order within the meaning of Section 4(3) of the Act.

Court's Response to Language Barrier Contention

The Court addressed the second contention that Azhari did not know Gujarati, only knowing Hindi, Urdu, and Arabic. Azhari belongs to Karnataka State and has settled in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The grounds of detention were in Gujarati, and it was contended that without a translated copy in a language understandable to him, he could not make an effective representation.

The Court responded, “We are conscious about the constitutional right of the petitioner to make representation under Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The object of furnishing grounds in the language understandable to the petitioner, is to enable the detenue to make a representation I..e to give him an opportunity to put for his objection against the order of detention, so that he can make his purposeful and effective representation.”

The Court noted that Azhari's brother had made a detailed representation to the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Gandhinagar, and to the Advisory Board. Additionally, social worker Mr. Pathan had submitted another representation to the Government. The Government, after examining the representations, rejected them and informed Azhari in writing about the decision. The Advisory Board had also given due opportunity for the petitioner to be heard and did not find sufficient cause to interfere with the detention decision.

The Court pointed out, “It need to be noted that in the petition, it is pleaded that, due to language barrier, he could not make representation. The facts of representation submitted by his brother has been suppressed by him. In such circumstances, when the petitioner availed his right and submitted representation, now he cannot plead that, due to language barrier he could not make effective and proper representation.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application

Case Title - Salman @Mufti Mohammad Salman Azhari S/O Mohammad Hasan Razvi Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 102

Click Here To Download The Judgment