2008 (8) TMI 1003 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. Distinction between "law and order" and "public order".
3. Validity of the detention order when the detenu was already in jail and had no pending bail application.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Detention Order u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982:
The detenu challenged the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, citing involvement in land grabbing cases registered under various sections of the IPC. The detaining authority concluded that releasing the detenu on bail would lead to similar offenses, thus necessitating detention for public welfare.

2. Distinction between "Law and Order" and "Public Order":
The detenu argued that the grounds for detention were based on law and order issues, not public order. The Supreme Court reiterated the distinction, emphasizing that "public order" involves disturbances affecting the community or public at large, while "law and order" pertains to individual acts. The Court cited several precedents, including Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, to illustrate that not all breaches of law amount to disturbances of public order.

3. Validity of the Detention Order When the Detenu Was Already in Jail and Had No Pending Bail Application:
The detenu's counsel argued that since the detenu was in jail with no pending bail application, the apprehension of his release was unfounded and merely the detaining authority's ipse dixit. The Court agreed, referencing cases like Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, and Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, which held that preventive detention should not be used if there is no imminent possibility of release.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the detenu's activities did not disturb public order and could be addressed under ordinary criminal law. The detention order was deemed illegal and unsustainable, leading to its quashing. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.