Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- The petitioner Arun Ghosh has been detained by the District Magistrate Malda under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act. The order was made on June 2, 1969 and he was arrested the following day. The order states that it was made to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order. His representation was rejected by the Advisory Board and also independently by the State Government. We have looked into the case and are satisfied that there was no undue delay at any stage in dealing with the various aspects of his detention as laid down in the Act.

2. It is, however, contended that the grounds which were furnished to him on June 3, 1969 do not bear upon the maintenance of public order or of his acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order. This is the only point urged in support of the petition by the learned counsel. In the affidavit filed in reply the District Magistrate has summarised the grounds as anti-social activities including rioting, assault and undue harassment to respectable young ladies in the public street of Malda town. The details of these activities are to be found in the grounds and may be summarized as follows:

18-5-1966 Teased one Rekha Rani Barua, and when her father protested confined and assaulted him.

29-3-1968 One Deepak Kumar Ray was wrongfully restrained and assaulted with lathis and rods.

1-4-1968 Attempt was made to assault Deepak Kumar Ray at the Malda Sadar Hospital where he was being treated for his injuries in the previous assault.

2-9-1968 Threatened one Phanindra C. Das that he would insult his daughter publicly.

26-10-1968 Embraced Uma Das d/o Phanindra C. Das and threw white powder on her face (Criminal case started).

7-12-1968 Obscenely teased Smt. Sima Das, sister of Uma Das and beat her with chappals.

18-12-1968 Smt. Sima Das was again teased.

26-1-1969 Threatened the life of Phanindra C. Das.

3. The submission of the counsel is that these are stray acts directed against individuals and are not subversive of public order and therefore the detention on the ostensible ground of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order was not justified. In support of this submission reference is made to three cases of this Court: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1966-1 SCR 709 Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, W. P. No. 179 of 1968, D/- 7-11-1968 (SC) and Shyamal Chakraborty v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta, W. P. No. 102 of 1969, D/- 4-8-1969 (SC). In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia s case 1966-1 SCR 709 this Court pointed out the difference between maintenance of law and order and its disturbance and the maintenance of public order and its disturbance. Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. Pubic order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. Take for instance, a man stabs another. People may be shocked and even disturbed, but the life of the community keeps moving at an even tempo, however much one may dislike the act. Take another case of a town where there is communal tension. A man stabs a member of the other community. This is an act of a very different sort. Its implications are deeper and it affects the even tempo of life and public order is jeopardized because the repercussions of the act embrace large sections of the community and incite them to make further breaches of the law and order and to subvert the public order. An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from another but in its p