2004 (8) TMI 701 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashing the order of detention dated 15.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City (in short the Commissioner ) directing detention of Chinnaboina Shankar @ C. Shankar (hereinafter referred to as the detenu ) legal? Whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order of detention.
2. Whether the acts of the detenu affect public order.
3. Distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'.
4. Justification of preventive detention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order of Detention:
The State of Andhra Pradesh challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision that quashed the detention order dated 15.7.2003, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, under Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Land-Grabbers Act, 1986. The High Court had found that the acts cited in the grounds of detention did not affect public tranquility or public order and thus quashed the detention order.

2. Whether the Acts of the Detenu Affect Public Order:
The High Court concluded that the incidents mentioned in the detention order did not show that the detenu's actions were affecting the maintenance of public order. The appellants argued that the grounds of detention highlighted the detenu's activities, which created a sense of terror and affected public tranquility. The Supreme Court noted that the grounds of detention referred to two specific instances and nearly 30 cases against the detenu, indicating the adverse effect of his activities on public order.

3. Distinction between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order':
The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'. 'Law and order' is broader and includes any legal contravention, while 'public order' is narrower and concerns acts that affect the community or public at large. The Court explained that the potentiality of an act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community distinguishes it as affecting public order. Acts affecting only specific individuals pertain to law and order, whereas acts disturbing the community's tranquility pertain to public order.

4. Justification of Preventive Detention:
Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to specified objects. It is not punitive but preventive, and the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is of primary importance. The Supreme Court noted that the detenu was a history-sheeter with over 30 cases against him, and his activities created terror in the public, affecting public order. The grounds of detention were found to be precise, pertinent, proximate, and relevant, with no vagueness or staleness. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing individual liberty with the needs of an orderly society.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, finding that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and justified the preventive detention. The detenu was ordered to surrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentence. The appeal was allowed.