STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HARI SHANKAR TEWARI
LAWS(SC)-1987-2-67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 25,1987
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
HARI SHANKAR TEWARI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON FATEHGARH VS. RAM MANOHAR LOHIA [RELIED ON]RAM MANOHAR LOHIA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RELIED ON]
PUSHKAR MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SUSHANTA GOSWAMI [RELIED ON]
ARUN GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
MADHU LIMAYR VS. VED MURTI [RELIED ON]
NAGENDRA NATH MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
S K KEDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
KANU BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
BABUL MITRA ALIAS ANIL MITRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
KUSO SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [RELIED ON]
RAM RANJAN CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RELIED ON]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
KHALIL AHMAD VS. SECRETARY HOME [LAWS(DLH)-1998-11-100] [REFERRED]MOHMAD SALIM ALIAS SALIM KHAN VS. POLICE COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GJH)-1997-2-44] [REFERRED]
NAEEM KANA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1987-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
VASHISHTH NARAIN KARWARIA ALIAS BHUKKHAL MAHARAJ VS. P C CHATURVEDI [LAWS(ALL)-1988-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
WAZIR YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1992-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU BHATIA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
NANHA PAHALWAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2001-2-107] [REFERRED]
RAJIV MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-154] [REFERRED TO]
Y GOWTHAM SIDDARTHA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE and ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VIJAYAWADA [LAWS(APH)-1994-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
VIMALA BAI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(KAR)-1988-2-27] [FOLLOWED ON]
KAMLA PANDEY VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1995-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL PURI LATE GULAB PURI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MPH)-1997-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMBARA SOY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2007-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
N AJIMEER KHAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM [LAWS(MAD)-1993-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
MOHMAD SALIM ALIAS SALIM KHAN IKBALHUSEN PATHAN VS. POLICE COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GJH)-1997-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH GIRIDHAR ACHAREKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1987-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
SENMOGAM ALIAS TIGER MUTTU HARIJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1987-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHU MEGHRAJ VIDHYA VS. R D TYAGI [LAWS(BOM)-1990-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAKAR SHANKAR PATIL VS. B AKASHI [LAWS(BOM)-1994-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
KAILAS LAXMAN JOSHI VS. B AKASHI COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THANE [LAWS(BOM)-1994-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
RUPESH RAM THAKUR VS. S CHAKRAVARTY [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE VS. KULWANTBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1992-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD KUMAR TYAGI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1989-1-55] [RELIED ON]
HARPREET KAUR HARVINDER SINGH BEDI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1992-1-18] [RELIED ON]
GULAB MEHRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1987-9-13] [RELIED ON]
GANESH CHANDRA BHATT VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALMORA [LAWS(ALL)-1993-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
MOGANTI SRIHARI RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DISI MAGISTRATE VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-114] [REFERRED TO]
MOGANTI SRIHARI RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(APH)-1997-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM SUB INSPECTOR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1995-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KAUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1987-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
KANARAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1990-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-2-47] [REFERRED]
MANNU @ MANMOHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1994-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
M. SHAGUNTHALA DEVI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-141] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMA NARAYAN PATTANAIK ALIAS PAPU VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2002-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
CHITIKESI SHOBA RANI W/O CHITIKESI SADASIVUDU VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SINGH VS. COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD DIVISION AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-248] [REFERRED TO]
MURALEEDHARAN T. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-162] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH VASUDEVAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-621] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUKREJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Ranganath Misra, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by which it has quashed an order of detention of the respondent made under S. 3(2), National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of that Court in Ashok Dixit v. State, disposed of on 1-8-1985 being Habeas Corpus Petition No. 11161 of 1984 for its conclusion that the detention of the respondent was bad in law. The majority opinion of the Full Bench, as far as relevant, said
"A solitary assault on one individual which may well be equated with ordinary murder can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. It can only raise a 'law and order' problem and no more. Assaulting an individual in a bus or train on account of enmity may affect only certain individuals; but if the assault is made indiscriminately in the bus or train and passengers are harassed indiscriminately the same would be likely to endanger public order as this kind of incident is bound to have such impact that it will disturb the even tempo of life of the community. The act or incident which may be attributed to the detenu may be reprehensible and yet if it concerns only specific individuals and it has no impact on the general members of the community and has no potentiality of disturbing the even tempo of life of the people, it cannot be held to be an activity prejudicial to public order."
(2.)The Full Bench in its turn referred to several decisions of this Court in its attempt to bring out a distinction between the concepts of law and order and public order and one of such decisions of this Court is the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal. (1969) 2 SCR 635. This Court said therein :
"The difference between the concepts of public order and law and order is similar to the distinction between public and private crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. In considering the material elements of crime, the historic tests which each community applies are intrinsic wrongfulness or the social expediency which are the two most important factors which have led to the designation of certain conduct as criminal. Dr. Allen has distinguished public and private crimes in the sense that some offences primarily injure specific persons and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. (See Dr. Allen's Legal Duties 249) There is a broad distinction along these lines the differences naturally arise in the application of any such test."
(3.)It is claimed that these observations of this Court were taken as the guidelines by the Full Bench to ascertain whether the allegations brought the case within the purview of public order. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly canvassed that the test laid down by Dr. Allen was not applicable to judge the validity of a detention order and the High Court has gone wrong in quashing the detention of the respondent.
"A solitary assault on one individual which may well be equated with ordinary murder can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. It can only raise a 'law and order' problem and no more. Assaulting an individual in a bus or train on account of enmity may affect only certain individuals; but if the assault is made indiscriminately in the bus or train and passengers are harassed indiscriminately the same would be likely to endanger public order as this kind of incident is bound to have such impact that it will disturb the even tempo of life of the community. The act or incident which may be attributed to the detenu may be reprehensible and yet if it concerns only specific individuals and it has no impact on the general members of the community and has no potentiality of disturbing the even tempo of life of the people, it cannot be held to be an activity prejudicial to public order."
(2.)The Full Bench in its turn referred to several decisions of this Court in its attempt to bring out a distinction between the concepts of law and order and public order and one of such decisions of this Court is the case of Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal. (1969) 2 SCR 635. This Court said therein :
"The difference between the concepts of public order and law and order is similar to the distinction between public and private crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. In considering the material elements of crime, the historic tests which each community applies are intrinsic wrongfulness or the social expediency which are the two most important factors which have led to the designation of certain conduct as criminal. Dr. Allen has distinguished public and private crimes in the sense that some offences primarily injure specific persons and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. (See Dr. Allen's Legal Duties 249) There is a broad distinction along these lines the differences naturally arise in the application of any such test."
(3.)It is claimed that these observations of this Court were taken as the guidelines by the Full Bench to ascertain whether the allegations brought the case within the purview of public order. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly canvassed that the test laid down by Dr. Allen was not applicable to judge the validity of a detention order and the High Court has gone wrong in quashing the detention of the respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.