GULAB MEHRA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 15-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B' 
c 
GULAB MEHRA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987. 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980-0rder of detention under section 
3(2) of-Challenged. 
The appellant was in jail on October 10, 1986, as an under-trial 
prisoner, when an order of detention issued in respect of him by the 
District Magistrate, respondent No. 2, under section 3(2) of the 
National Security Act, 1980 was clamped on him, and on the same day, 
the grounds of detention were served on him. The appellant made a 
representation against the grounds of detention before the authorities 
concerned, but the same was rejected and the order of detention, con-
D firmed. He then challenged the order of detention, as illegal and bad by 
a Habeas <;_orpus Writ Petition before the High Court on various 
grounds, including the ground that the grounds of detention were abso-
lutely vague and there was complete non-application of mind by the 
detaining authority in coming to the subjective satisfaction, and that the 
E 
order of detention passed on him while he was in custody was wholly 
arbitrary and unwarranted. The High Court dismissed the Writ Peti-
tion, holding that the order of detention passed while the appellant was 
in jail could not be held .to be illegal. The appellant moved this Court by 
special leave for relief against the judgment and order of the High 
Court. 
F 
Allowing the Appeal, the Court, 
HELD: The order of detention was passed by the respondent No. 
2. District Magistrate, on the basis of two Criminal Cases in respect of 
two incidents which had occurred on October 2 and 3, 1986. So far as 
the case being G.D. No. 38 was concerned, the report of this incident 
G was made by the picket employed at police station, Kydganj. It 
appeared from this report that there were no particulars about the 
shopkeepers who had been terrorised and threatened for payment of 
money, as alleged in the grounds of detention, nor were mentioned at all 
} 
the names of any of the witnesses in whose presence the threat or terror 
was used and money was demanded. The report was absolutely vague 
H and it was not possible for the detenu to give an effective representation 
126 
"
\. 
GULAB MEHRA v. STATE OF U.P. 
127 
against the ground, which is one of the Constitutional requirements 
A 
enjoined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The second 
ground, which led to crime case No. 248/86 under section 307, l.P.C., 
and crime case no. 249/86 under section 4/5 of the Explosives Act and 
which occurred on Octobe~ 3, 1986, registered on the complaint of 
Sub/Inspector Yatendra Singh through special court, Allahabad, also 
did not disclose any particulars as to the shop-keepers in whose pre· 
B 
sence the bombs alleged were thrown by the appellant, and who were 
terrified and panic-stricken, etc., nor were mentioned the names of any 
witnesses in respect of the said incident. [133F, 134A·D I 
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 c 
public order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the 
act upon the Society, as held by this Court in Kanu Biswas v. State of 
West Bengal, [1972] 3 S.C.C. 831, while determining the meaning of 
'public order'. Public order is what the French Call "Order Publique" 
and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 
From the observations of this Court made in many cases, it is evident D 
that whether an act amounts to a breach of law and order or a breach of 
public order, solely depends upon its extent and reach to the society. If 
the act is restricted to particular individuals or a group of individuals, it 
breaches the law and order problem, but if the effect and reach and 
potentiality of the act are so deep as to affect the community at large 
and/or the even tempo of the community, then, it becomes a breach of E 
the public order. An act, which may not at all be objected to in certain 
situations is capable of totally disturbing the public tranquillity. When 
communal tension is high, an indiscreet act of no significance is likely to 
disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community. An 
order of detention made in such a situation has to take note of the 
potentiality of the act objected to. Thus, whether an act relates to law F 
and order or the public order depends upon the impact of the act on the 
life of the community, or, in other words, th

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