LexSMT. ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. ANGOORI DEVI FOR RAM RATAN
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. '
DECEMBER 6, 1988
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETIY, JJ.]
B
National Security Act, 1980,· s. 3_.:_Detenus-Two police person·
nel in Seeurity 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.
The detenu, in the writ petitions filed· by the petitioners under
C
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 bold of him and started beating
0
him and asked for a receipt for
the goods. Thereafter they removed the goods from the rickshaw and D
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 suspen·
sion. The court, however, released them on bail. While the case was
under investigation, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi detained them
u1s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that the above
E
criminal activity of the detenu has created a sense of insecurity in the
.,
minds of public at large and is pre· judicial to the 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
F
order', but purely a matter for 'law and order'. Counsel for the respon·
dents, on the other hand, argued that though the incident in question
was a simple case of robbery, since It was committed by persons belong·
Ing to the disciplined police force, it would 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.
·
G
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]
1023
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A
(2) The law of pre,·entive 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. [1027DJ
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
3(1) The subjective satisfaction of tbe 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' dep~nds
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 tbe 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 ~therwise
simple 'law and order' situation might assume the gravity and mischief
of a 'public-order' problem by reason alone of the manner of circums-
tances in which or the place at which it is carried-out. Necessarily,
much depends upon tbe nature of the act, the, place where it is commit-
ted and ~he sinister significance attached to it. Ho2sc-:ET
.
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 c..Se with no sinister significance
attached to it. 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. (103-0D-E]
·Superintendent, Central 'Prison,· Fatehga;h v. Ram Manohar
Lohia, (1960] 2 SCR 821; Ayya Alias Ayub v. The State of U.P. &
Anr., Judgment Today 1988 Vol. 4 p. 489 (at 496); Abdul Aziz v. The
Distt. Magistrate Burdwtin & Ors., [1973] 2 SCR 646 and Mohd. Dhtina
Ali Khan v. State of West Bengal, (1975] Suppl. SCR 124followed.
-.
ORIGINAL JURISOICilON:· W1it Petitioq {Cr!) Nos. 353 and
491of 1988.
(Under Article 32 of the_Constitution ~f India). Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.