JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:— These two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution are for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh, who have been detained under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act of 1980.

2. Ram Ratan was a Head Constable and Hawa Singh was a Constable in the Security Unit of Delhi Police. While on duty, they were together said to have committed a cognizable offence under S. 392/34 of I.P.C. along with a member of the public.. Immediately thereafter they were arrested and placed on suspension. The Court, however, released them on bail. While the case was under investigation, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi (Mr. Vijay Karan) thought fit to detain them under the National Security Act. Accordingly, he made the orders which are impugned herein. Subsequently, they have been summarily dismissed from service under Art. 311(ii)(b) of the Constitution.

3. The principal contention urged for the petitioners relates to the oft-repeated question, - that the ground of detention has no nexus to the "public order", but purely a matter for "law and order".

4. In order to appreciate the contention urged in this regard, it will be necessary to have regard to the orders of detention. The orders passed against the two detenus are on different dates, but are similar in terms and it may be sufficient if we refer to one of the orders. The ground of detention in each case relates to one incident which has been stated as-follows :

"That on 22-7-88, one Shri Jasbir Singh S/o. Shri Inder Singh R/o. 5869/3 Ambala City (Haryana) reported that on 21-7-88 he purchased some T.V. parts from Lajpat Rai Market. After purchase, he loaded the TV parts on a rickshaw and asked the rickshaw puller Shanker S/o. Shri Vasudev R/o -Old Lajpat Rai Market, Near Hanuman Mandir, who was known to him to take the TV parts: to Patiala Transport near Libra Service Station G.T.K. Road. He himself went along to Patiala Transport and waited for the rickshaw puller. At about 11.00 p.m. the rickshaw puller informed him that two police personnel namely H. C. Ram Ratan and Constable Hawa Singh who were previously posted in P.S. Kotwali Mong with a member of the public Prabhu DayaL who he knew had stopped his rickshaw near B Block, Industrial Area, G.T.K. Road. Head constable Ram Ratan caught him and started beating him and asked for a receipt for the goods Constable Hawa Singh and Prabhu Dayal removed the parts and loaded in a TSR and went away."

5. It was also stated that those T.V. parts were recovered from the detenus and the case was registered under S. 392/34 IPC in which the investigation was progressing.

There then, it was said:

"From the above criminal activity of Shri Ram Ratan it is clear that he, being a Police Officer and bound to provide security and safety to the public, has himself committed a heinous offence which has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of public at large and is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Keeping in view the above criminal activity of the said Head Constable Ram Ratan, it has been felt necessary to detain him u/ s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 so that his such activity which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order could be stopped.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

Sd- (Vijay Karan)

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; Delhi",

6. As is obvious from the order, the Commissioner was satisfied with the need to detain the person, firstly because, the person being a police officer was bound to provide security and safety to the public and secondly, the offence committed was " heinous" which has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the public at large.

7. The same was highlighted before us by Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents justifying the detention orders. The counsel argued that though the incident in question was a simple case of robbery, since it was committed by persons belonging to the disciplined police force, it would certainly disturb the public safety in t