Supreme Court of India
K.K. SARAVANA BABUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 963
- Decided
- 22 August 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The detention order under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act is illegal and unsustainable because the alleged offences do not amount to a disturbance of public order and the detaining authority lacked sufficient material to justify preventive detention.
Summary
The appellant, K.K. Saravana Babu, was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 on the basis of two pending criminal cases of land grabbing. He challenged the detention, arguing that the offences did not affect public order and that the detaining authority had no material to justify his preventive custody, especially since he was already in jail and no bail applications were pending. The Supreme Court examined the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" through a series of precedents and held that the alleged land‑grabbing offences did not disturb the even tempo of community life, a requisite for public order. Consequently, the detention order was deemed arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable, violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Court quashed the detention order and ordered the appellant’s release.
Issues considered
- Whether detention under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 is justified when the grounds are based solely on land‑grabbing criminal cases.
- Whether the alleged offences constitute a disturbance of public order within the meaning of the Act.
- Whether the detaining authority possessed sufficient material, given the appellant was already in custody and no bail was pending, to satisfy the requirement of preventive detention.
- Whether the detention order infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
- How the legal distinction between "law and order" and "public order" applies to the facts of this case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
preventive detentionpublic orderlaw and orderSection 3(1)land grabbingarbitrary detentionfundamental rightsArticle 21Article 22quashing detention order
Judgment
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 468
A K.K. SARAVANA BABU
V.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2008)
AUGUST 22, 2008
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
Preventive Detention - Detention of detenu relying on
two criminal cases against him relating to land grabbing -
c Propriety of - Held: Detention order is arbitrary, illegal and
unsustainable - Even if criminal cases relied on by detaining
authority are assumed to be correct, no case of disturbance
of public order is made out - Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
0
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 -
.3(1).
Words and Phrases - 'Public order' - Meaning of in
.......
the context of preventive. detention.
E Appellant-detenu was detained uls 3(1) of Tamil
Nadu Prevention of Dangerious Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates Act, 1982. The detention was ordered
F relying on two criminal cases relating to land grabbing.
Detenu's representation seeking revocation of the ~
detention was rejected. His writ petition seeking
quashing of detention order was also dismissed. Hence
the present appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Cases affecting the public order are those Ja
which have great potentiality to disturb peace and
tranquillity of a particulai· locality or disturb the even
H 468
K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 469
NADU &ANR.
)f
tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality. A
The detention order passed against the detenu was
arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable because even assuming
the allegation in both the cases relied on by the detaining
authority are correct, then also no case of disturbance of
public order is made out. The detenu can be dealt with B
:.1 under the ordinary criminal law if. it becomes imperative.
[Paras 30, 31 and 32] [482-G 483-0, 482-E, 483-C]
Brij Bhushan and Anr v. The State of Delhi (1950) SCR
605; Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras (1950) SCR
:
4
594; Dr R_am Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors. C
(1966) 1 SCR 709 - followed.
Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98;
Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal,
AIR 1970 SC 852; Babu/ Mitra alias Anil Mitra v. State of
0
West Bengal and Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 393; Dipak Bose alias
Naripada v. State of West Bengal (1973) 4 SCC 43; Kuso
Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1974) 1 sec 185 and
+ Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors. (1982) 2 SCC
403; Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. C. Anita (Smt.)
(2004) 7 SCC 467; R. Ka/avathi v. State of Tamil Nadu E
(2006) 6 sec 14 - relied on.
-1
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Ors.
(1985) 4 SCC 232; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate,
Dhanbad, Bihar and Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 416 and TV. F
,+ Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi
v. State through Secretary and Anr (2006) 2 SCC 664 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1950) SCR 605 G
Followed Para 15
..... (1950) SCR 594 Followed Para 16
. (1966) 1 SCR 709 Followed Para 18
(1970) 1 sec 98 Relied on Para 19
H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
7-
A AIR 1970 SC 852 Relied on Para 20
(1973) 1 sec 393 Relied on Para 21
(1973) 4 sec 43 Relied on Para 22
(1974) 1 sec 185 Relied on Para 23
B (1982) 2 sec 403 Relied on Para 24 .)J.
(1985) 4 sec 232 Referred to Para 26
(1986) 4 sec 416 Referred to Para 27
(2004) 1 sec 467 Relied on Para 28
c ~·
(2006) 6 sec 14 Relied on Para 29
(2006) 2 sec 664 Referred to Para 30
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1332 of 2008
D
From the Order dated 29.4.2008 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in H.C.P. No. 1677 of 2007
Huzefa Ahmadi, S. Vallinayagam and Y. Raja Gopala -+--
Rao for the Appellant. '
~
E '
T.L.V. Iyer, R. Nedumaran and V.G. Pragasam for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
F
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the --/...
High Court of Madras passed in Habeas Corpus Petition
No.1677 of 2007 on 29th April, 2008.
3. The detenu has challenged the detention order under
G Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, ~
Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982) passed vide Order No. 360/07 dated 28.8.2007.
H
_,
,\
K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 471
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
4. The detenu is involved in a land grabbing case A
registered at St. Thomas Mount Central Crime Branch Cr. No.
70/2006 under sections 420, 465, 468 read with 471 and
120(8) IPC and the said case is pending trial before the
court. Subsequently another case was registered against the
detenu during 2007 in Central Crime Branch, Chennai City X s
Crime No. 364/2007 under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468
read with 471 and 120(8) IPC for the offence of land grabbing
and his activities are said to have been adverse to the interest
of the land owners and prospective buyers. The modus
operandi of the detenu in both the cases is land grabbing in c
a clandestine manner. The detaining authority had considered
the said aspect and came to the conclusion that in case the
detenu is let out on bail he would again indulge in similar type
of offences and, therefore, it is imperative to detain him. The
order of detention came to be passed keeping in mind the
0
welfare of public who are owning lands as well as the
prospective buyers.
5. It may be pertinent to mention that a number of bail
applications of the detenu were dismissed and he was already
in jail on 28.08.2007 when the detention order was served on E
him.
6. The detenu made a representation on 14.9.2007 to
the Secretary and the Advisory Board seeking revocation of
the detention order, which was rejected on 14.10.2007.
Thereafter, the detenu filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking F
quashing of the detention order. The said petition was
dismissed on 29.04.2008. The detenu aggrieved by the said
order preferred a special leave petition before this court. In
pursuance to the notice issued by this court, a counter affidavit
has been filed by the respondent. G
7. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing for the
detenu submitted that the detention order passed against the
detenu is illegal and unsustainable in law. The detention order
is based on aforementioned two criminal cases. According to
H
'
'
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
)"-
'!-
A the detenu, all allegations incorporated in both the criminal
cases if taken to be true even then the detenu cannot be said
to have indulged in activities prejudicial to the public order.
8. It was contended by the detenu that the grounds of.
detention are based on cases pertaining to law and order
B problem. The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public
x
order' has been very clearly defined in a catena of judgments
of this court. The clear legal position which emerges from the
number of judgments of this court clearly leads to the definite
conclusion that if allegations are taken to be correct even then
c the activities of the detenu do not fall in the category of cases
affecting the public order.
9. Mr. Ahmadi also submitted that the High Court has
seriously ~rred in not properly appreciating the distinction
between "law and order" and "public ord~r" and rejected the
D
habeas corpus petition preferred by the detenu.
10. Mr. Ahmadi further contended that three bail
applications preferred by the detenu were rejected and no +.
bail application was pending when the detention order was
E passed, therefore, the apprehension expressed by the
detaining authority that there was imminent possibility of detenu
likely to be released on bail was merely ipse dixit of the
detaining authority without any material on record.
11. Mr. Ahmadi submitted that the detention order ex
F facie is arbitrary, illegal, mala fide and passed with an oblique
motive. He also contended that the State because of wrongful
detention has deprived the detenu of his fundamental rights
enshrined under Articles 21 and 22 of tl=le Constitution of India.
12. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for
G
the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the detaining authority
after arriving at a subjective satisfaction clamped the ab_ove ).....
order of detention on the basis of an appraisal of the material
placed by the sponsoring authority. -
H 13. Mr. Iyer further submitted that the detention order
.
K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 473
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
~
does not constitute an infringement of the fundamental rights A
guaranteed to the detenu under Articles 19, 21 and 22(5} of
the Constitution of India. Mr. Iyer contended that the detenu is
a slum grabber and involved in crime No. 7012006 under
sections 420, 465, 468 read with 471 and 120(8) IPC and
crime No. 364/2007 under sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 B
iL. read with 471 and 120(8) IPC and that, keeping in mind the
...... seriousness of the offefJC~ of land grabbing, the detaining
authority was justifi~d in passing the detention order.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and carefully gone through the record of the case. c
15. This court on several occasions examined the
concepts of "law and order" and "public Order". Immediately
after the Constitution came into force, a Constitution Bench of
this court in Brij Bhushan & Another v. The State of Delhi
D
(1950) SCR 605 dealt with a case pertaining to public order.
The court observed that "public order" may well be paraphrased
in the context as "public tranquillity".
16. Another celebrated Constitution Bench judgment of
this court is in the case of Ramesh Thappar v. The State of ~
Madras (1950) SCR 594. In this ca.se, Ramesh Thappar, a
printer, publisher and editor of weekly journal in English called
Cross Roads printed and published in Bombay was detained
under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949.
The detention order was chailenged directly in the Supreme F
~ Court of India by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. The allegation was that the detenu circulated
documents to disturb the public tranquillity and to create
disturbance of public order and tranquillity.
17. The court observed:- G
"... 'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation
and signifies that state of tranquillity which prevails among
the members of a political society as a result of internal
regulations enforced by the Government which they have
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.
'f
A established ....... it must be taken that 'public safety' is
used as a part of the ·wider concept of public order ..... "
18. The distinction between "p1:1blic order" and "law and
order" has been carefully defined in, a Constitution Bench
judgment of this court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of
B Bihar & Others (1966) 1 SCR 709. In this judgment, )(
Hidayatullah, J. by giving various illustrations clearly defined "'
the "public order" and "law and order". Relevant portion of the
judgment reads thus:
c " .... Does the expression "public order" take in ·every kind
of disorder or only some? The answer to this serves to
distinguish "public order" from "law and order" because
the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if
disturbed, rnust lead to public disorder. Every breach of
the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two
D
drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public
disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to
maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the +
ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppos~
that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of
E them tried to raise communal passions. The problerri is
.still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of
public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The
contravention of law always.affects order but before it can
be said to affect public order, it must affect the community
F or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order
leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for
-+-
action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances
which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is
entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent
G subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance
of law and order under ordinary circumstances. ~
lt will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings
of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend
disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of
H
~
K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 475
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
State", "law and order" also comprehends disorders of A
less gravity than those affecting "public order". One has to
imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents
the largest circle within which is the next circle representing
public order and the smallest circle represents security of
State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and B
order but not public order just as an act may affect public
order but not security of the State .... "
19. In Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1970) 1
SCC 98, Hidayatullah, J. again had an occasion to deal with
the question of "public order" and "law and order". In this C
judgment, by giving various illustrations, very serious effort
· has been made to explain the basic distinction between "public
order'' and "law and order". The relevant portion reads as
under:
D
" ... Public order was said to embrace more of the
community than law and order. Public order is the even
tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a
whole or even a specified locality. Distutbance of public
_,, order is to be distinguished from acts directed against
individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of E
causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the
degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life of the
community in a locality which determines whether the
disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order.
Take for instance, a man stabs another. People may be F
shocked and even disturbed, but the life of the community
keeps moving at an even tempo, however much one may
dislike the act. Take another. case of a town where there
is communal tension. A man stabs a member of the other
community. This is an act of a very different sort. Its G
implications are deeper and it affects the even tempo of
life and public order is jeopardized because the
repercussions of the act embrace large sections of the
community and incite them to make further breaches of
the law and order and to subvert the public order. An act H
I
r
......
,----
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
1--
<
A by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality '·
it may not differ from another but iri its potentiality it may
be very different. Take the case of assault on girls. A guest
at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen •'
chamber maids. He may annoy them and also the
B managen:ient but he does not cause disturba.nce of public ~
order. He may even have a fracas with the friends of one
of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of
ef
l
law and order only. Take another case of a man who
molests women in lonely places. As a result of his activities
c girls going to colleges ancf schools are in constant danger ·---
and fear. Women going for 'heir ordinary business are
afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this
man in its essential quality is not different from the act of
the other man but in its potentiality and in its a"ffect upon
the public tranquillity there is a vast difference. The act of
D
the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes a
disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first
requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and \--
the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive ,.___
of their honour and he can be said to be causing 'r
E disturbance of public order and not merely committing r-
individual actions which may be taken note of by the \
criminal prosecution agencies. It means therefore that the
question whether a man has only committed a breach of
law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a
F disturbance of the public order is a question of degree
and the extent of the reach of the act upon the. society ... "
20. The concept of 'public order' and 'law and order' has
been dealt with in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee & Others
v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852. In this case,
G ...
the Court had relied Oh the important work of Dr. Allen on
'Legal Duties' and spelled out the distinction between 'public'
J(- .•
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 ar.d social
H
"! .
.... K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
477
~ expediency which are the two most important factors which A
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. There is a B
broad distinction along these lines, but differences naturally
'I
arise in the application of any such test.
21. This court in Babu! Mitra alias Anil Mitra v. State of
West Bengal & Others (1973) 1 SCC 393 had an occasion
to deal with the question of "public order" and "law and order". c
The court observed that 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 D
:·
it may be very different.
22. In Dipak Bose alias Naripada v. State of West
...., Bengal {1973) 4 SCC 43, a three-Judge Bench of this court
explained the distinction between "law and order" and "public
.'1
order" by giving illustrations. Relevant portion reads as under: E
".. Every assault in a public place like a public road and
terminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror
and even panic and terror in those who are the spectators.
But that does not mean that all of such incidents do F
necessarily cause disturbance or .dislocation of the
community life of the localities in which they are committed.
There is nothing in the two incidents set out in the grounds
in the present case to suggest that either of them was of
that kind. and gravity which would jeopardise the
G
maintenance of public order. No doubt bombs were said
to have been carried by those who are alleged to have
--; committed the two acts stated in the grounds. Possibly
that was done to terrify the respective victims and prevent
them from offering resistance. But it is not alleged in the
H
';;'-
~
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A grounds that they were exploded to cause terror in the ·r- ..
locality so that those living there would be prevented from l-
following their usual avocations of life. The two incidents
alleged against the petitioner, thus, pertained to specific
individuals, and therefore, related to and fell within the ~~
8 area of law and order. In respect of such acts the drastic
provisions of the Act are not contemplated to be resorted ,.\(
to and the ordinary provisions of our penal iaws would be
sufficient to cope with them."
-~-....~-)
23. In Kuso Sah v. The State of Bihar & Others (1974)
c 1 sec 185, this court had also considered the issue of "public.
order". The court observed thus:
\
I
"These acts may raise problems of law and order but we
find it impossible to see their impact on public order. The·
D two concepts have well defined contours, it being well
established that stray and unorganised crimes of theft and
assault are not matters of public order since they do not
tend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of law
are bound in some measure to lead to disorder out every ~
infraction of law does not necessarily result in public )
E ,,
disorder ....
24. This court in another important case Ashok Kumar
v. Delhi Administration & Others (1982) 2 SCC 403 clearly
spelled out a distinction between 'law and order' and 'public
F order'. In this case, the court observed as under:-
"13. The true distinction between the areas of "public order"
and "law and order" lies not in the nature or quality of the
act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society.
. The distinction between the two concepts of "law and order"
G and "public order" is a fine one but this does not mean that
there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in nature but
committed in different contexts and circumstances might x...-
cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific
individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law
H· and order, while in another it might affect public order. The
- K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
479
Jf act by itself therefore is not detrimental of its own gravity. A
It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of
the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order .... "
25. It has to be seen whether the detenu's activity had
any impact on the local community or to put it in the words of 8
j Hidayatullah, J., had the act of the detenu disturbed the even
tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality?
-I
26. Mr. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the detenu submitted
that the detenu was in jail at the time when the detention order c
was passed. His three bail applications were rejected. Since
there was no bail application pending, therefore, there was no
imminent possibility of his being released by the court. The
detenu's coming out on bail was merely ipse dixit of the
detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever.
D
There was no cogent material before the detaining authority
on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied
that Jhe detenu was likely to be released on bail. In absence
-1 of any such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the
detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of
detention. The learned counsel for the detenu also placed E
reliance on Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah &
Others (1985) 4 SCC 232. In this case the court observed as
under:-
"The order of detention was passed as the detaining F
authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was
released on bail he would again carry on his criminal
activities in the area. If the apprehension of the detaining
authority was true, the bail application had to be opposed
and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order
G
in the high~r forum had to be raised. Merely on the ground
that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner
--> was likely to get bail an order of detention under the
National Security Act should not ordinarily be passed. We
are inclined to agree with counsel for the petitioner that
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] .12 S.C.R.
,
'>
A the order of detention in the circumstances is not ¥--
sustainable and is contrary to the well settled principles
... indicated by this Court in a series of cases relating to
preventive detention. The impugned order, therefore, has
to be quashed."
B 27. Mr. Ahmadi, the learned counsel further placed
reliance on Binod Sin[Jh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar -\;
& Others (1986) 4 SCC 416. In this case, the court observed
as follows:-
'
c "7. It is well settled in our constitutional framework that the
power of directing preventive detention given to the ~
appropriate authorities must be exercised in exceptional
cases as contemplated by the various provisions of the
different statutes dealing with preventive detention and
should be used with great deal of circumspection. There
D
must be awareness of the facts necessitating preventive
¢ ·custody of a person for social defence. If a man is in
custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being
released, the power of preventive detention should not be ~
exercised. In the instant case when the actual order of
E detention was served upon the detenu, the detenu was in
jail. There is no indication that this factor or the question
that the said detenu might be released or that there was
such a possibility of his release, was taken into
consideration by the detaining authority properly and
F seriously before the service of the order. A bald statement
is merely an ipse dixit of the officer. If there were cogent ~
materials for thinking that the detenu might be released
then these should have been made apparent. Eterna.1
vigilance on the part of the authority charged with both law
G and order and public order is the price which the democracy
in this country extracts from the public officials in order to
protect the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. In the .z--
affidavits on behalf of the detaining authority though there
are indications that transfer of the detenu from one prison
H to another was considered but the need to serve the
-
i
-., K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 481
• ~
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
detention order while he was in custody was not properly A
considered by the detaining authority in the light of the
relevant factors. At least the records of the case do not
indicate that. If that is the position, then however
disreputable the antecedents of a person might have been,
without consideration of all the aforesaid relevant factors, B
the detenu could not have been put into preventive custody.
'f Therefore, though the order of preventive detention when
tf it was passed was not invalid and on relevant
considerations, the service of the order was not on proper
consideration." c
28. In Commissioner of Police & Others v. C. Anita
(Smt.) (2004) 7 SCC 467, this court again examined the issue
of "public order" and "law and order" and observed thus:
"7. .... The crucial issue is whether the activities of the
D
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"
-1 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 E
of the community taking the country as a whole or even a
specified locality. The distinction between the areas of
"law and order'' and "publir •.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 F
~ 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 a few individuals directly involved
as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could
raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, G
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 to ask is:
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. '
.
-......
A "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the Y-
community so as to amount to a disturbance of the
public order or does it affect merely an individual
leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed?"
This question has to be faced in every case on its facts."
B '
29. In R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 6 ·~
sec 14, this court while dealing with the case affecting the /
public order observed that even a single act which has the " y
propensity of affecting the even tempo of life ·and public
c tranquillity would be sufficient for detention.
30. Mr. Ahmadi, the learned counsel for the detenu placed
reliance on TV Sravanan·afias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar
Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary & Another (2006) ·2
SCC 664. In this case the court observed that when the detenu
D was already in custody, there was no imminent possibility of
his being released. In that event it would not be appropriate
to pass order of detention against him. This proposition of
law also seems to be well-settled, but in view of the fact that
~
the detenu succeeded in his. threshold submission that the
E . detention order passed against him was arbitrary, illegal and ~
,._
unsustainable because even assuming the allegation in both
the cases relied on by the detaining authority are correct then
also no case of disturbance of public order is made out.
31. We have tried to deal with the important cases dealing
F with the question of "law and order" and "public order" right
from the case of Ramesh Thappar (supra) to the latest case 4-..
of R. Kalavathi (supra). This court has been consistent in its
approach while deciding the distinction between 'law and
order' and 'public order'. According to the crystallized legal
G position, cases affecting the public order are those which have
great potentiality to disturb peace and tranquillity of a particular
locality or in the words of Hidayatullah, J. disturb the even ..(_·-
tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality.
32. In the instant case, in the grounds of detention, two
H
K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 483
NADU & ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
->f
cases have been enumerated, one of which pertains to the A
of(ences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468 read with
471 and 120(8) IPC in Crime No.70 of 2006. Another case
pertains to Crime No.364 of 2007 registered under sections
420, 465, 466, 467, 468 read with 471 and 120(8) IPC. The
facts of these cases have been -carefully examined and even 8
assuming the allegations of these cases as true, even then by
f
no stretch of imagination, the offences committed by the detenu
"
can be called prejudicial to public order. The detenu can be
dealt with under the ordinary criminal law if it becomes
imperative. c
33. In this view of the matter, the detention order passed
against the detenu is illegal, unsustainable and liable to be
quashed and we accordingly do so. Since we are quashing
the detention order on the threshold submission of the detenu,
therefore, it is not necessary to examine other submissions D
advanced by the detenu. The detention order is accordingly
quashed. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith, if not required
in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed and
~
disposed of.
-:· K.K.T. Appeal allowed. E
\
~
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search