Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v
State of Bihar (Lohia II),[1] a Constitution Bench decision held
that ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ are not same thing. Just came to know about a case in which it was applied. Sharing for your kind information only.
In the case of Sudhir Kumar Saha v Commissioner of Police, Calcutta[2] the reason given was as under:
In the case of Sudhir Kumar Saha v Commissioner of Police, Calcutta[2] the reason given was as under:
Every act that affects "law and order"
need not affect 'public order'. If it is otherwise every one who disturbs
"law and order", however petty the offence committed by him may be,
can be detained under the Prevention Detention Act. This would be a total
repudiation of of the rule of law and an affront to our Constitution.
In Sudhir
Kumar Saha case the the petitioner was ordered
to be detained by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta under s. 3(2) of the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) by his order dated July 15,
1969. The detention of accused was ordered because of the
three instances
i.
on 28-2-1968 between 9-50 p.m. and 10-30
p.m. the, petitioner armed with a knife along with some others, also armed,
created disturbance on the Northern Avenue in the course of which he attacked
the local people with knife as a result of which one Ajit Kumar Biswas sustained
stab injuries. It is further alleged that during that incident, the petitioner
and his associates hurled soda water bottles and brickbats towards the local
people endangering their lives and safety and thereby they created, fear and
frightfulness amongst the people of the locality and thus affected public peace,and
tranquillity of the locality.
ii.
On 29-10-1968 at about 9-10 p.m. the
petitioner being armed with bombs and accompanied by, some other created
disturbance on Raja Manindra Road, in the course of which he and his associates
hurled bombs, used swords, iron rods' and lathis against the local people.
iii.
On 28-6-1969 at about 11-15 p.m., the
petitioner and his associates armed with
bombs created disturbance on Raja Manindra Road in the course of which the indiscriminately
hurled bombs towards the local ;people.
Despite three
allegations on three different occasions, the accused appellant was not
prosecuted. The court held :
In
the ordinary course, if there is truth in the allegations made, he should have
been prosecuted and given an opportunity to defend himself. The allegations
made against the petitioner do not amount to anything more, than that he
committed certain breaches of law. The
detention of the petitioner under the circumstances of this case appears to be
a gross misuse of the power conferred under the Preventive Detention Act…. The
three incidents mentioned in the grounds are- stray incidents spread over a
period of one year and four months. These incidents cannot be said to be inter-linked. They could not, have prejudiced the maintenance
of 'public order' nor can they be held to be subversive of 'public order'. They
were at best prejudicial to "'law and order".
[1] AIR 1966 SC 740: 1966 SCR (1) 709. The Constitution Bench consisted of
A.K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, Raghubar Dayal, J.R. Mudholkar And R.S. Bachawat.
The judgement was split(4:1). Raghubar Dayal, J was in minority.
[2]
Decided on
18 December, 1969 by a Division Bench. Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 814, 1970
SCR (3) 360.
