STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus SANJAI PRATAP GUPTA@ PAPPU AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 20-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
SANJAI PRATAP GUPTA@ PAPPU AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980-Sections 3(2) and SA-Detention-Order 
highlighted two aspects-Order quashed by High Court holding that two 
aspects being inseparable, evidence in support of first aspect not having been 
supplied, order was invalid-On appeal, held: Detention order was valid as 
the two aspects are separable in view of Section 5-A and since the case was 
a public order situation. 
''Law and Order" and "Public Order"-Distinction between-Discussed. 
Respondent-detenu was detained pursuant to order passed under 
National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of detention highlighted two 
aspects one relating to criminal background of antecedents and other 
relating to particular incident. Detenu filed habeas corpus petition 
questioning validity of detention order on the ground that as the two 
aspects given in the detention order were inseparable and since necessary 
documents to substantiate the allegations relating to earlier incidents 
were not supplied to the detenu, order of detention was rendered invalid. 
The stand of the State was that the two aspects were separable in view 
of Section 5-A of the Act. High Court quashed the detention order. 
In appeal to this Court detenu contended that the two aspects in 
the ground of detention were inseparable; that Section 5-A was not 
applicable in the case; that foundation for the order of detention, at the 
most was law and order situation and not public order situation; that a 
single act could not have been considered as sufficient to affect public 
order warranting detention; and that even if order of High Court is held 
to be bad, yet he should not be detained because of long passage of time 
and in absence of live link between the alleged incident and requirement 
of his continued detention. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. While the expression 'law and order' is wider in scope 
H 
561 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, 'public order' has 
a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such 
contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public 
order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as 
a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas 
B 
of 'law and order' and 'public order' is one of the degree and extent of 
the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the 
act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it 
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention 
in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as 
c 
distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise problem of 'law 
and order' only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror 
wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish 
it as an act affecting 'public order' from that concerning 'law and order'. 
'Public order' is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and 
order. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. 
D 
Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also 
but disorder is a broad spectrum, which includes at one end small 
disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. 
The true dis~inction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public 
order' lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree 
E 
F 
G 
H 
and extent of its reach upon society. 'Law and Order' comprehends 
disorders of less gravity than those affecting 'public order' just as 'public 
order' comprehends disord~rs ofless gravity than those affecting 'security 
of State'. In the present case from the grounds of detention it is apparent 
that the same was not a 'law and order' situation but a 'public order' 
situation. (566-A-D, G, H; 567-E; 568-B, DJ 
Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1972) SC 1656; Dr. Ram 
Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1_966) 1 SCR 709; Kishori 
Mohan Bera v. The State of West Bengal, (1972) 3 SCC 845; Pushkar 
Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 635; Arun Ghosh v. State 
of West Bengal, (1970) 3 SCR 288; Nagendra Nath Monda! v. State of West 
Bengal, (1972) 1 SCC 498; Babu/ Mitra alias Anil Mitra v. State.of West 
Bengal and Ors., (197
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.