KUSO SAH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 08-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. DWIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
F 
G 
195 
KUSO SAH 
v. 
TI:IE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
November 8, 1973 
[S. N. DWIVEDI, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.j 
Constitution of India Art. 32-Habeas Corpus-Petitioner detained for 
rwo reas~ns : n1ailuenance .of public 01'tier and maintenance of essential supplies 
nnd ~·erv1ces-Two out of three Rrounds in resoecr of first reason found irrele-
i·ant-Held elltire order of detention is illegal aS the two reasons cannot be 
bifurcated. 
The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated April 2 
19~3. p~ed by the District Magist·rate, Monghyr, with a view to preventing the 
petitioner from ·"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
,order. and the maintenance of supplies a.nd services essential to the community." 
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, 1973 were divid~ 
-ed· into two parts, the first relatir..g to public order and the second to essential 
'Supplies and services. Two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first part 
set out fac~ which referred respectively to a stray incident on a JYUblic street 
and an assault on a public servant. The petitioners challenged the order of 
,detention by a lnabeas corpus petition in this Court. 
AUowing the l)etition, 
HELD : ( 1) The two concepts 'law and order' and 
'public order' have 
well defined contours. 
Stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are 
not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of 
public life. InfractioriS of law are bound in "Some measure to lead to disorder 
but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in pubJic disorder. "Law 
and order"' com{'rehcnds disorders of less gravity than these affecting "public 
order", jnst ·as "public order" •comprehends disorders of less gravity than thoso 
affectin~ "security of State.". 
[196G] 
-
Pushkar Mukherjee and otht:r1 v. The State of West Bellgal [1969) 2 S.C.R. 
635, 642 and Dr. Ram Manoher Lohia v:. State of Bihar and Others (1966] 1 
S.C.R. 709. 746, noferied to. 
(2) Two of the grounds on Which the order of detention rests bear no ra~ 
tional connection with "public order'', in the interests of which the petitioner 
was ordered to be detained. 
The order of detention expressly states that it 
·was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner 
·:Prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies 
and service essential to the community, and the District Magistrate was· satisfi-
ed that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at large be will indulge in acti-
vities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies 
and services essential to the community. 
The two 
reasons maintenance of 
public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the commu-
nity, cannot therefore be bifurcated and considered in separate compartments. 
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority embraces both the reasons 
and since two out of the thr.ee grounds mentioned in the first part! are irrelevant, 
the entire order is illegal. [179D, 1980] 
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. 
v. 
The State of West Bengal [1969] 2 S.C.R. 
635. 642 and Motilal Jain v. State of Bihor & Ors. [l9681 3 S.C.R. 587, 593, 
referred to. 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1973. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a Writ in the 
nature of habeas corpus. 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974] 2 S.C.R. 
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the petitioner. 
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J.-By this petition for the writ of habeas corp.us, 
the petitioner challenges an order of detention dated April 2, 1973 
passed by the District Magistrate, Monghyr with a view to preventing 
the petitioner from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the mainten· 
ance of public order and the maintenance of supplies and services essen-
tial to the community''. 
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, \ 9·7-3-
are divided into two parts, the first part referring to acts prejudicial 
to the maintenance of public order and the second to those projudicial 
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. 
Two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first part read 
thus:""'."" 
"(b) On 20-1-71 at about 2 A.M. he and his brother, 
Garib Sao were leading two trucks with stolen Railw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.