9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 - Detention under Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - Allegations of creating disturbances and endangering public peace - Misuse of power conferred under the Act - Distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order'. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard a petition under Article 32 seeking a writ of habeas corpus for release from detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The petitioner was detained by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, under Section 3(2) of the Act with the aim of preventing acts prejudicial to 'public order'. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government after Advisory Board approval. The grounds for detention included three instances of creating disturbances and endangering public peace. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioner was not prosecuted for any of the offenses mentioned. The Court highlighted the importance of individual freedom as a guaranteed right under the Constitution, emphasizing that deprivation of liberty should only occur through due process of law. The judgment criticized the misuse of preventive detention powers in this case, noting that such powers should not be a substitute for regular legal processes. The Court analyzed the incidents mentioned in the grounds for detention, spanning over a year and four months, and concluded that they did not amount to a disturbance of 'public order'. It distinguished between 'public order' and 'law and order', citing previous judgments to explain that not every act affecting 'law and order' necessarily impacts 'public order'. The Court reiterated that the concept of 'public order' involves a disturbance affecting the general tranquility of the community, emphasizing that the degree of disturbance determines whether it constitutes a breach of 'law and order' or 'public order'. Ultimately, the Court held that the incidents cited in the grounds did not meet the threshold for disturbing 'public order', indicating a lack of justification for the petitioner's preventive detention.
|
