Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(7) Distinguishing the aspects of "Law and Order" and "Public Order", in Amiya Kumar Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 672 : AIR 1972 SC 2259, the Apex Court held that the true distinction between the areas of "law and Order" and "public Order" lies not merely in the nature of quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case, it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore, touches the problem of law and order only, while in another it might affect "public Order".

(10) In Ram Ranjan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1975) 4 SCC 143 : AIR 1975 SC 609 (611), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the acts which "Law and Order" are not different from the acts which affect "public Order". Indeed, a state of peace or orderly tranquility which prevails as a result of the observance or enforcement of internal laws and regulations by the Government, is a feature common to the concepts of 'law and order' and 'public order'.

(11) The Apex Court Court in another important case Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Admn. (1982) 2 SCC 403) clearly spelled out a distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'. In this case, the Court observed as under:(SCC pp. 409-10, para 13) ?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' 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 cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. 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 17??It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular act of violence creating disorder that distinguishes it as an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order. Some offences primarily injure specific individuals and only secondarily the public interest, while others directly injure the public interest and affect individuals only remotely. The question is of the survival of the society and the problem is the method of control.?

(13) In State of U.P vs. Hari Shankar Tewari, reported in 1987 (2) SCC 490, the majority opinion of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ashok Dixit vs. State, (Full Bench) extracted in Hari Shankar Tewari's case reads as follows:-

"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."
?The other three cases which are under investigation also relate to assault to private individuals and they have nothing to do with the disturbance of even tempo of the life of the community or of men of a particular locality nor does it affect the even flow of life of the public as a whole. Section 3(1) clearly mandates that the order of detention can be made only when the State Government or its authorised officer has come to a subjective satisfaction that a person is required to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Sub- section 4 embodies a deeming clause to the effect that a person should be deemed to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when such person is engaged in any activities as a dangerous person which affect ad- versely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Explanation 2 clause 4 further provides that for the purpose of this sub-section public order shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in this sub-section directly or indirectly, is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or wide-spread danger of life, property or public health. Coming to this particular case, the criminal cases mentioned in the grounds do not refer to any dangerous, harmful or adverse act or alarm which gives rise to a feeling of insecurity for the general public amongst the persons of a locality. The criminal cases are confined to certain private individuals and it is merely a law and order problem and it has nothing to do with maintenance of public order. Its reach and effect is not so deep as to affect the public at large. It does not create or tend or create any panic in the mind of people of particular locality or public in general nor it affects adversely the maintenance of public order. There is nothing to show that the above activities of the petitioner have affected or tended to affect the even tempo of fife of the community. An act may create a law and order problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the maintenance of public order.?