9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of detention order under the National Security Act, 1980. 2. Consideration of act as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. Distinction between law and order problem and disturbance of public order. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 The Supreme Court heard two appeals against the High Court of Allahabad's order upholding the detention orders passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention orders were served to the appellants along with the grounds of detention and the first information report upon their detention. The State Government approved the detention orders under Section 3(4) of the Act after the appellants' representations were rejected. The Government confirmed the detention orders for a period of 12 months from the respective dates of detention. Issue 2: Consideration of act as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order The main contention before the High Court was whether the act leading to the detention orders related to the maintenance of law and order or the disturbance of public order. The High Court analyzed the impact of the act on society as a whole, focusing on the sense of insecurity and danger it created beyond the individual victims. It was observed that the act aimed to deter others from competing with the appellants in tender submissions, affecting the community of contractors. The High Court concluded that the detention orders were legal and valid, dismissing the writ petitions. Issue 3: Distinction between law and order problem and disturbance of public order The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between acts directed against individuals, creating a law and order problem, and acts disturbing public order by causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It cited previous judgments to establish that public order refers to the even tempo of community life and is jeopardized by acts with a significant impact on society. In the present case, the alleged assault was limited to the complainant and did not extend to causing public disturbance. The Court found that the act did not create terror or panic in the community and did not affect the even tempo of community life. Notably, similar appeals arising from the same incident and grounds of detention were allowed by the Court, directing the release of the appellants. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals without costs, emphasizing the importance of considering the degree and extent of an act's impact on society to determine if it constitutes a breach of law and order or a disturbance of public order.
|
