1. Challenge to detention order under National Security Act, 1980 — Allegations of robbery and threats — Apprehension of future criminal activity upon release on bail. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 172
1998(1) Supreme 436
Supreme Court of India
K. Venkataswami and A.P. Misra, JJ.
Smt. Tarannum -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 419 of 1997
Decided on 5-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Rajiv Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
For the State of U.P. : Adarsh Goel, Additional Solicitor General, Dr. I.P. Singh, A.S. Pundir, Advocates.
Important Points
The court distinguished between 'public order' and 'law and order,' ruling that acts affecting only individuals without endangering public tranquillity are 'law and order' issues. Detention under the National Security Act is invalid if the grounds lack a nexus to the maintenance of 'public order'.
Subject
Detention - Public Order
Act Referred
Headnote
National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)--Preventive detention order-Main cause for action in grounds of detention was alleged incident where in detenu with three others was alleged to have looted ornaments and cash from a house wielding knives and pistols-Other grounds of threats etc. related to alleged main incident-None of the acts mentioned in Grounds of Detention could be considered as prejudicial to maintenance of “public order”-Detention order was liable to be quashed. (Paras 4, 5 & 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Lack of nexus between grounds of detention and maintenance of public order — Inordinate delay in considering representation of the detenu. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Alleged criminal acts of robbery and threats constitute a law and order problem and do not endanger public tranquillity or the tempo of community life. (Para 5 , 8 )
4. Distinction between law and order and public order depends on whether the act is confined to an individual or endangers public tranquillity and community life. (Para 6 )
5. Petition allowed — Detention order quashed — Detenu ordered to be set at liberty. (Para 9 )
6. What is the legal distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'?
Acts confined to an individual without affecting the tempo of community life are matters of law and order. Conversely, acts of greater gravity likely to endanger public tranquillity fall within the orbit of public order. (Para 6 )
7. What types of criminal activities are considered to have an impact on 'public order'?
Activities such as dare-devil repeated criminal acts, open shootouts, bombing public places, serious offences in public transport, plundering public properties, or terrorizing people create public insecurity and impact public order. (Para 6 )
8. How is the impact of a person's activities judged to determine if they are prejudicial to public order?
The court examines the length, magnitude, and intensity of the activities to determine if the society as a whole, rather than just an individual, suffers from the questionable activities. (Para 7 )
Order
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed by the wife of one Imran Ahmad alias Kheer, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980 by the order dated 27.4.97 under challenge. The petitioner challenges the Order of Detention substantially on the ground that the Grounds of Detention do not have any nexus to the maintenance of public order. It is also contended that there was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the concerned authorities.
2. The above complaints in the petition are denied by the respondents by filing a Counter Affidavit.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
4. We have been taken through the Grounds of Detention. We find, on a careful consideration of the same, that the main cause for action appears to be an alleged incident which took place on 16.2.97 at 7.00 p.m. in the house of one Vijai Chaudhary, a resident of House bearing No. 54, Sarai Zeena. According to the respondents, the detenu along with three other companions looted gold ornaments, watches and cash amounting to Rupees one lac thirty thousand from the said house of Vijai Chaudhary be wielding knives and pistols. The other grounds based on this incident related to alleged threats held out by the detenue himself or through his agent while he was put in jail. No incident is mentioned in the Grounds of Detention which has no relation with the main incident that took place on 16.2.97 at the house of Vijai Chaudhary. For the main incident and the incidents connected with that, those were supposed to have taken place on 3.4.97 and on other dates, appropriate criminal cases had been filed and the detenu was arrested and imprisoned. Factually, when the detention order was passed the detenu was in prison and on the basis of apprehension that the detenu would be bailed out and the detenu would indulge in several criminal activities, the impugned order of detention was passed under Section 3(2) of the Act.
5. As we have pointed out earlier, none of the acts mentioned in the Grounds of Detention relating to the main incident can be considered as acts by the detenu which are prejudicial to the maintenance of “public order”. They all relate to `law and order’ problem which has been booked appropriately under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.
6. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Smt. Angoori Devi for Ram Ratan v. Union of India & Ors.1. This Court in that case had occasion to consider the fine distinguishing feature between ‘Public order’ and ‘law and order’. This Court observed as follows:-
“The impact on “public order” and “law and order” depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to an individual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be a matter of law and order only. But where the gravity of the act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquillity, it may fall within the orbit of the public order. This is precisely the distinguishing feature between the two concepts. Sometimes, as observed by Venkatachaliah, J. in Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P.: “What might be an otherwise simple `law and order’ situation might assume the gravity and mischief of a ‘public order’ problem by reason alone of the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried out.” Necessarily, much depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is committed and the sinister significance attached to it.
As for example dare-devil repeated criminal acts, open shoot out, throwing bomb at public places, committing serious offences in public transport, armed persons going on plundering public properties or terrorising people may create a sense of insecurity in the public mind and may have an impact on “public order”. Even certain murder comm
