ARUN GHOSH versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 02-12-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 19 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

288 
ARUN GHOSH 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
December 2, 1969 
[M. HJDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND 
I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950), s. 3(2)-Mo/estation of indivi-
dual women and assaults on other individuals-Whether breach of public 
order-Va/idit.v of detention. 
The appellant molested two respectable young ladies threatened their 
father's life and assaulted two other individuals. 
He was detained under 
s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 in order to prcvent'him 
from acting prejudicially to the mainte.nance of public order. 
On the question of the legality of the detention. 
HELD : The question whether a man has only committed a breach of 
law and order, or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of 
the public order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of 
the act upon society, 
The test is : Does it lead to a disturbance of the 
even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount to a 
disturbance of the public order, or, does it affect merely an individual 
without affecting the tranquillity of society. [290 H; 291 Dl 
In the present case, however reprehensible 
the 
appellant's 
conduct 
might be, it did not add up to the situation where it may be ·said the 
community at large was being disturbed. 
Therefore, it could not be said 
to amount to an apprehension of breach of public order, and hence, he 
was entitled to be released. [291 G-H] 
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] I S.C.R. 709, relied 
upon. 
Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, 
[1969] 2 
S.C.R. 635 and Shya111al Chakr(lborty v. ·con1111issioner of Police, Calcutta 
& Anr. [1970] I S.C.R. 762, referred to. 
ORIGINAL Ju~,ISDICT!ON : Writ Petition No. 287 of 1969. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Janendra Lal, for the petitioner. 
G 
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu. for the res-
pondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. 
The petitioner Arun Ghosh . has been 
detained by the District Magistrate Maida under s. 3 ( 2) of the 
Preventive Detention Act. The order was made on June 2, 1969 
and he was arrested the following day. 
The order states that it 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ARUN GHOSH v. WEST BENGAL (Hidayatu!lah, C.J.) 
289 
was made to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the main-
tenance of public order. 
His representation was rejected by the 
Advisory 'Board and also independently by the State Government. 
We have looked into the case and are satisfied that there was 
no undue delay at any stage in dealing with the various aspects 
of his detention as laid down in the Act. 
It is, however, contended that the grounds which were fur-
nished to him on June 3, 1969 do not bear upon the maintenance 
of public order or of his acting prejudidally to the maintenance 
of public order. This i~ the only point urged in support of the 
petition by the learned counsel. In the affidavit filed in reply the 
District Magistrate has summarised the grounds as 
'anti-social 
activities including rioting, assault and 
undue harassment to 
respectable young ladies in the public street of Maida town.' The 
details of these activites are to be found in the grounds and may 
be summarised as follows : 
18-5-1966-Teased one Rekha Rani Barna, and 
when her father protested confined and assaulted him. 
29-3-1968-0ne Deepak Kumar Ray was wrong-
fully restrained and assaulted with lathis and rods. 
1-4-1%8-Attempt was made to assault Deepak 
Kumar Ray at the Maida Sadar Hospital where he was 
being treated for his injuries in the previous assault. 
2-9-1968-Threatened one Phanindra C. Das that 
he would insult his daughter publicly. 
26-10-1968-Embraced Uma Das d/o Phanindra 
C. Das and threw white powder on her face (Criminal 
case started). 
7-12-1968-0bscenely teased Smt. Sima Das, sister 
of Uma Das and beat her with chappals. 
18-12-1968-Smt. Sima Das was again teased. 
26-1-1969-Threatened the life of Phanindra C. 
Das. 
The submission of the counsel is that· these are stray acts 
directed against individuals and are not subversive of public order 
and therefore the detention on the ostensible ground of prevent-
ing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order wa~ 
not justified. In suooort of this submission reference is made to 
three cases of this Court: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of 
Bihar('); Pushkar Muk

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.