9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land- Grabbers Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act'). Wife of the detenu Smt. C. Anita filed a habeas corpus writ application before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning legality of the order of detention. The primary stand taken in the writ petition was that the alleged acts as highlighted in the grounds of detention by no stretch of imagination can be called to affect public tranquility and/or be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was submitted that the incidents to which reference was made in the grounds of detention allegedly took place long back and there was no live link to warrant the order of detention. The High Court held that though there was proximity with the incident highlighted in the order of detention there was nothing to show that those acts were affecting maintenance of public order. It was further held that even if the detenu was held to be a goonda and land grabber that was not sufficient to warrant preventive detention. Accordingly the order of detention was quashed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, including the right to personal liberty of citizens would loose all their meanings provide the justification for the laws of preventive detention. Laws that provide for preventive detention posit that an individual's conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or to the security of State or corroding financial base provides grounds for satisfaction for a reasonable prognostication of possible future manifestations of similar propensities on that part of the offender. This jurisdiction has at times been even called a jurisdiction of suspicion. The compulsions of the very preservation of the values of freedom of democratic society and of social order might compel a curtailment for individual liberty. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law said Thomas Jefferson would be to lose the law itself. with life, liberty and all those who are enjoying with us, thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the needs . This, no doubt, is the theoretical jurisdictional justification for the law enabling preventive detention. But the actual manner of administration of the law of preventive detention is of utmost importance. The law has to be justified by strik ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression 'law and order' is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order. 'Public order' has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting 'public order' from that concerning 'law and order'. The question of ask is; Does it lead t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there can be no overlapping, in the sense that an act cannot fall under two concepts at the same time. An act, for instance, affecting public order may have an impact that it would affect both public order and the security of the State. (See Kishori Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 845; Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR 635; Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 3 SCR 288; Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal, [1972] l SCC 498). The distinction between 'law and order and 'public order' has been pointed out succinctly in Arun ghosh 's case (supra). According to that decision the true distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question upon society . The Court pointed out that the act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ but in its potentiality it may be very different . (See Babul Mitra alias Anil Mitra v. State of West Bengal and Ors., [1973] l SCC 393, Milan Banik v. State of West Bengal, [1974] 4 SCC 504. The true distinction between the areas of law and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat of the detaining authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant. That is the case here. There is no vagueness or staleness. The incidents have been highlighted in the grounds of detention coupled with the definite indication as to the impact thereof which have been precisely stated in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention quoted above. The two incidents referred to show as to in what manner the detenu was demanding money from whosoever was purchasing land and giving threats to kill if the demands were not met. The incidents clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as to how the acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court. Learned counsel for the detenu submitted that even if it is so the judgment of the High Court should not be set aside and the matter could be remitted back to it for fresh decision. We find no substance in such a plea. The order of detention has a specific purpose to serve. That being so, we set aside the judgment of the High Court. The detenu shall forthwith surrender to custody to serve t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
