http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SMT. ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1988

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  371            1988 SCR  Supl. (3)1023  1989 SCC  (1) 385        JT 1988 (4)   587  1988 SCALE  (2)1497

ACT:     National  Security Act, 1980,s.  3--Detenus--Two  police personnel in Security Unit--Offence committed u/s 392/34  I. P.  C.- An isolated criminal act--Does not  disturb  ‘public order’--‘Public  Order’  and  ‘law  and  order’--Distinction between.

HEADNOTE:      The  detenu,  in  the  writ  petitions  filed  by   the petitioners  under Article 32 of the Constitution,  belonged to  the Security Unit of Delhi Police. While on  duty,  they were  alleged  to  have stopped a rickshaw  puller  who  was carrying some goods to a transport company. They caught hold of  him and started beating him and asked for a receipt  for the  goods.  Thereafter  they removed  the  goods  from  the rickshaw  and went away in a T.S.R. The aforesaid goods  was recovered  from  their possession and a case  under  Section 392/34  I.P.C. was registered against them. Thereafter  they were  arrested  and  placed  under  suspension.  The  court, however,  released  them on bail. While the case  was  under investigation.  the Commissioner of Police,  Delhi  detained them  u/s  3(2) of the National Security Act,  1980  on  the ground  that the above criminal activity of the  detenu  has created  a  sense of  insecurity in the minds of  public  at large  and  is pre-judicial to that  maintenance  of  public order.     It  was contended on behalf of the petitioners that  the said  orders are bad in law, since the ground  of  detention has  no nexus to the‘public order’, but purely a matter  for ‘law  and order’. Counsel for the respondents, on the  other hand  argued  that  though the incident in  question  was  a simple case of robbery, since it was committed by persons to longing  to  the  disciplined  police  force,  it  would  of certainly  disturb  the  public safety in the  life  of  the community  with  a sense of insecurity in  their  minds  and therefore the detention orders were justified.     Allowing the writ petitions,     HELD:  (1)  The  orders of detention  are  quashed.  The detenu  Ram  Ratan  and  Hawa  Singh  are  set  at   liberty forthwith. [1030F]                                                   PG NO 1023

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

                                                 PG NO 1024     (2) The law of preventive detention is not different  to police  personnel.  It is the same law that  is  applied  to police  as well as to public. Therefore, this  Court  cannot apply  a different standard in respect of acts  individually committed by any police officer. [1027D]     3(i)  The  subjective  satisfaction  of  the   detaining authority with respect to the persons sought to be  detained should  be  based only on the   nature of  the  activities disclosed  by  the  grounds of  detention.  The  grounds  of detention  must  have nexus with the purpose for  which  the detention is made. [1027E]     3(ii)  The impact on ‘public order’ and ‘law and  order’ depends  upon the nature of the act, the place where  it  is committed and motive force behind it. If the act is confined to  an individual without directly or  indirectly  affecting the tempo of the life of the community, it may be matter  of law  and  order only. But where the gravity of  the  act  is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquility,  it may fall within the orbit of the ‘public order’. What  might be  an  otherwise  simple ‘law and  order’  situation  might assume the gravity and mischief of a ‘public-order’  problem by  reason alone of the manner of circumstances in which  or the  place  at which it is  carried-out.  Necessarily,  much depends  upon the nature of the act, the place where  it  is committed  and  the sinister significance  attached  to  it. [1028C-E]     In  the instant case, the offence was committed  by  two misguided  police men under the cover of darkness  with  the assistance  of  a member of the public. It  is  an  isolated criminal case with no sinister significance attached to  it. It way certainly suicidal to those two police personnel. But it  seems to that 110 connection whatsoever to  disturb  the public  order’  having regard to the  circumstances  of  the case. [1030D-E]     Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. ram Manohar Lohia, [1960] 2 SC 821; Ayya Alias Ayub v. The State of U.P, JUDGMENT: Aziz  v. The Distt. Magistrate Burdwan & Ors., [1973] 2  SCR 646 and Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan v. State of West Benal,. [1975] Suppl. SC 124 followed.

&     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (crl) Nos. 353  and 491 of 1988.     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     A.S. Pundir for the Petitioners.                                                   PG NO 1025     V.C. Mahajan, Mrs. A. Katiyar, Dalveer Bhandari and  Ms. Subhashini for the Respondents.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These two petitions under  Art, of the Constitution are for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus for  the release of Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh, who have  been detained  under  sec. 3(2) of the National Security  Act  of 1980.     Ram  Ratan  was a Head Constable and Hawa  Singh  was  a Constable  in  the Security Unit of Delhi Police.  While  on duty, they were together said to have committed a cognizable Offence under Sec. 392/34 of IPC along with a member of  the public. Immediately thereafter they were arrests and  placed on  suspension.  The Court. however released  them  on  bail While  the case was under investigation the Commissioner  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Police,  Delhi (Mr. Vijay Karan) thought fit the detam  them under  the National Security Act. Accordingly. he made  them orders  which are impugned herein. Subsequently.  they  have been  summarily  dismissed  from  service  under  Article  3 11(ii)(b) of the Constitution.     The  principal  contention  urged  for  the  petitioners relates  to  the oft-repeated question--that the  ground  of detention  has no nexus to the ‘public order ’ but purely  a matter for "law and order".     In  order  to appreciate the contention  urged  in  this regard it will be necessary to have regard to the orders  of detention.  The orders passed against the two detenu are  on different  dates,but  are  similar in terms and  it  may  be sufficient  if we refer to one of the orders. The ground  of detention  in  each case relates to one incident  which  has been stated as follows:     That  on 22.7.88, one Shri Jasbil Singh S/o  Shri  Inder Singh  R/o  5869/3 Ambala City (Haryana)  reported  that  on 21.7.88 he purchased some T.V. parts from Lajpat Rai Market. After purchase, he loaded the TV parts on rickshaw and asked the rickshaw puller Shanker S.o Shri Vasudev R/o Old  Lajpat Rai  Market.  Near Hanuman Mandir, who was known to  him  to take  the  parts  to Patiala Transport  near  Libra  Service Station  G.T.K.  Road.  He himself  went  alone  to  Patiala Transport and waited for the rickshaw puller. At about 11.00 pm.  the  rickshaw   puller informed  him  that  two  police                                                   PG NO 1026 personnel  namely H.C.  Ram Ratan and Constable  Hawa  Singh who  were  previously posted in P.S. Kotwali  along  with  a member  of the public Prabhu Dayal who he knew  has  stopped his  rickshaw  near B block, Industrial Area,  G.T.K.  Road. Head Constable Ram Ratan caught him and started beating  him and asked for a receipt for the goods. Constable Hawa  Singh and  Prabhu Dayal removed the parts and loaded in a TSR  and went away."     It was also stated that those T.V. parts were  recovered from  the  detenu  and the case was  registered  under  sec. 392/34 IPC in which the investigation was progressing.     There then, it was said:     From the above criminal activity of Shri Ram Ratan it is clear  that he, being a Police Officer and bound to  provide security  and safety to the public, has himself committed  a heinous  offence which has created a sense of insecurity  in the  minds  of public at large and is  pre-judicial  to  the maintenance of public order.     Keeping in view the above criminal activity of the  said Head  Constable  Ram Ratan, it has been  felt  necessary  to detain  him u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act,  1981  so that   his  such  activity  which  is  prejudicial  to   the maintenance ot public order could be stopped.                  xxx xxx.xxx xxx                                         Sd/- (Vijay Karan)                                COMMISSIONER OF POLICE: Delhi     As  is  obvious  from the order,  the  Commissioner  was satisfied  with  the  need to  detain  the  person,  firstly because,  the  person being a  police officer was  bound  to provide security and safety to the public and secondly,  the offence committed was "heinous" which has created a sense of insecurity in the minds of the public at large.     The  same  was highlighted before us  by  Shri  Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents justifying the detention orders.  The  Counsel  argued that though  the  incident  in question  was  a  simple  case  of  robbery,  since  it  was                                                   PG NO 1027 committed  by  persons belonging to the  disciplined  police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

force,  it would certainly disturb the public safety in  the life  of the community with a sense of Insecurity  in  their minds.     It is true that the detenu belonged to the police  force in  the  national capital. Public look for  the  police  for safety.  Society   regards them as their  guardian  for  its protection.  Society  needs  a  properly  trained  and  well disciplined police force whom it can trust in all  respects. They are the real frontline of our defence against violence. They have to maintain law and order. They have to  safeguard our  freedoms  and liberty. They have to prevent  crime  and when  crime is committed, they have to detect it  and  bring the accused to justice. They must be available at all hours. They  are  always  expected  to  act  and  indeed  must  act properly. it is reprehensible if they  themselves indulge in criminal activities.     We are not, as we cannot, be unmindful of the danger  to liberties  of  people  when  guardians  of  law  and   order themselves  indulge  in  undesirable acts. But  the  law  of preventive  detention is not different to police  personnel. It  is  the same law that we apply to police as well  as  to public. We cannot, therefore, apply a different standard  in respect  of  acts  individually  committed  by  any   police officer.  The  subjective  satisfaction  of  the   detaining authority  with respect to the person sought to be  detained should  be  based  only  on the  nature  of  the  activities disclosed  by  the  grounds of  detention.  The  grounds  of detention  must  have nexus with the purpose for  which  the detention is made.     The  question  in  this case is  whether  the  crime  in question  has  any impact on ‘public order as  such.  Courts have strived to give to this concept a narrower construction than what the literal words Suggest. In the  Superintendent, Central  Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram  Manohar Lohia [1960]  SCR 321 Subba Rao, J., as he then was, observed (at 833):     "But  in  lndia under Art. 19(2) this  wide  concept  of public  order is split up under different heads. It  enables the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the  right  to  freedom  of speech  and  expression  in  the interests  of the security of the State, friendly  relations will  foreign States, public order, decency or morality.  or in  relation to contempt of court, defamation or  incitement to  an  offence. All the grounds mentioned  therein  can  be                                                   PG NO 1028 brought  under the general head public order"  in  its  most comprehensive sense. But the juxtaposition of the  different grounds  indicates  that,  though  sometimes  they  tend  to overlap,  they must be ordinarily intended to  exclude  each other.  "Public  order  is  therefore  something  which   is demarcated   from  the  others.  In  that   limited   sense, particularly in view of the history of the amendment, it can be  postulated that ‘public order is synonymous with  public peace, safety and tranquility."     The  impact on public order" and law and order"  depends upon the nature of the act, the place where it is  committed and  motive  force behind it. If the act is confined  to  an individual  without  directly or  indirectly  affecting  the tempo  of the life of the community, it may be a  matter  of law  and  order only. But where the gravity of  the  act  is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquility,  it may  fall  within  the orbit of the public  order.  This  is precisely   the  distinguishing  feature  between  the   two concepts.  Sometimes  as observed by Venkatachaliah,  J.  in Ayya  Alias Ayub v. The State of U.P. & Anr. Judgment  today 1988  Vol.  4 p. 489 (at 496): ‘what might be  an  otherwise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

simple law and order situation might assume the gravity  and mischief  of a public-order problem by reason alone  of  the manner or circumstances in which or the place at which it is carried-out.  Necessarily, much depends upon the  nature  of the  act  the place where it is committed and  the  sinister significance attached to it.     As  for example dare devil repeated criminal acts.  open shoot out throwing bomb at public places. committing serious offences   in  public  transept,  armed  persons  going   on plundering  public  properties  of  terrorising  people  may create a sense of insecurity in the public mind and may have an impact on public order. Even certain murder committed  by persons  in  lonely  places  with  the  definite  object  of promoting  the cause of the party to which they  belong  may also affect the maintenance of public order .     In  Abdul  Aziz v. The Dist. Magistrate Burdwan  &  Ors. [1973] 2 SCR 646 this Court has stated so. There two grounds were  furnished to the detenu in justification of the  order of detention. It was stated:     "firstly,  that the petitioner and his  associates  were members of an extremist party (CPI-ML), that on 16th  August 1971,  they  armed  themselves  with  lethal  weapons   like                                                   PG NO 1029 firearms, choppers and daggers with a view to promoting  the cause  of  their party, that they raided the  house  of  one Durgapada  Rudra  and murdered him and  that  the  aforesaid incidents  created a general sense of insecurity, as  result of  which  the residents of the locality  could  not  follow their  normal  avocations  for a  considerable  period.  The second  ground  of detention is that on 22nd May,  1971  the petitioner  and  his  associates raided the  house  of  Smt. Kshetromoni  Choudhury and murdered one Umapada Mallick  who was  staring in that house. This incident is also stated  to have  created  a  general sense of  insecurity  amongst  the residents of the locality."     Repelling  the  connection  in that case  that  the  two incidents  referred to above are but simple cases of  murder germane to law and order but could have no impact on  public order Chandrachud, J. as he then vas, said (at p. 648):     "A  short answer to this contention is that the  murders are stated to have been committed by the petitioner and  his associates  with the definite object of promoting the  cause of  the party to which they belonged. These, therefore,  are not  stray  or simple cases of murder as  contended  by  the learned  counsel. Such incidents have serious  repercussions not merely on law and order but On public order.     In  Mohd. Dhana Ali khan v. State of West Bengal  [1975] Suppl  SCR  124 this Court had an occasion to  consider  the detention  of  a person under the  maintenance  of  Internal Security Act, 1971 regarding a single instance of theft in a running train at night. The acts attributed to the detenu in that case were that on 3.8.1973. between 2110 and 2120 hrs., the  detenu  and  his associate  being  armed  with  daggers boarded  a  3rd class compartment of SL 257 UP train  of  E. Railway  Sealdah Division at Gocharan Railway Station.  They put  the passengers of the compartment to fear of death  and snatched  away  a wrist watch and a gold necklace  from  one Nirmal  Chatterjee  and  his wife in  between  Gocharan  and Surajpur Railway Stations. The they decamped with booty from the  running  train  at Suryapur  Railway  Station.  It  was contended  in  that  case  that  the  said  single  incident referred  to  have  not  even  casual  connection  with  the disturbance of public order. Fazal Ali. while rejecting that contention said (at 126).     ‘From  a  perusal of this we are unable  to  accept  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

                                                 PG NO 1030 contention  of the petitioner that this ground has no  nexus with  the disturbance of public order. It is true  that  the ground  contains  a  single incident of  theft  of  valuable property from some passengers travelling in a running  train and may amount to robbery. But that does not by itself  take the  case  out  of  the purview of  the  provisions  of  the Maintenance   of  Internal  Security  Act.  There  are   two pertinent facts which emerge from the grounds which must  be noted.  In  the  first  place the  allegation  is  that  the petitioner  had  snatched  away a wrist  watch  and  a  gold necklace after putting the passengers of the compartment  to fear of death. Secondly, the theft had taken place at  night in  a  running train in a third class  compartment  and  the effect  of  it  would be to  deter  peaceful  citizens  from travelling  in  trains at night and this  would  undoubtedly disturb the even tempo of the life of the community."     We have carefully examined the act complained of in  the present case in the light of the principles stated above. It is  an isolated criminal case with no sinister  significance attached  to it. The offence was committed by two  misguided police  men under the cover of darkness with the  assistance of  a  member of the public. It was certainly   suicidal  to those  two  police  personnel.  But  it  seems  to  have  no connection  whatsoever to disturb the ‘public  order  having regard to the circumstances of the case.     The  last contention urged for the petitioners that  the detention  would be illegal in view of dismissal  of  detenu from  service is really without merit. The subsequent  order of  dismissal is not germane to of examine the  validity  of the detention.     In  the result the rule is made absolute. The orders  of detention  impugned in these cases are quashed.  The  detenu Ram Ratan and Hawa Singh be set at liberty forthwith. M.L.A.                                     Petitions allowed.