STATE OF U.P. versus HARI SHANKAR TEWARI

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 426 · Decided: 25-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
HARi SHANKAR TEWARI 
FEBRUARY 25, 1987 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, RANGANATH MISRA 
AND M:M. DUTT, JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)-Detention Order-
Assailed in Court-Duty of Court-To find out whether impugned 
activities affect 'Public order' or 'law and order'. 
. A Division Bench of the High Court quashed the order of deten-
tion of the respondent, made under Section 3(2) of the National Security 
Act, 1980 as had in law, following the earlier Full Bench decision in the 
case of Ashok Dixit v. State and others that a solitary assault on one 
individual which may well he equaled with ordinary murder can hardly 
D be said to disturb public peace of place public order in jeopardy so as to 
bring the case within the purview of the Act, that it can·only raise a 'law 
and order' problem and no more, and that the act or· incident w_hich 
may be attributed to the delenu may he reprehensible and yet if it 
concerns only specific individuals and has no impact on the general 
members of the community and has no potentiality of disturbing the 
E even tempo of life of the people, it cannot he held to be an activity 
prejudicial to public order. 
F 
In appeal by the State, it was contended that the High Court was 
wrong in quashing the detention order. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: Conceptually, there is difference between law and order 
and public order but what in a given situation may be a matter covered 
by law and order may really turn out to be one of public order. Facts of 
each case have to be looked int.o to ascertain whether a matter relates to 
G the larger circle or the smaller circle. An act which may not at all he 
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 lo 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. No hard and fast rule 
H can really be evolved to deal with problems of human socidy. Every 
426 
-
I -+. ~ 
+ 
STATE OF U.P. v. H.S. TEWARI [MISRA, J.] 
427 
possible situation cannot be brought under water-tight classifications 
and a set of tests to deal with them cannot be laid down. As and when an A 
order of detention is questioned, it is for the court to apply these weU-
known tests to f"md out whether the impugned activities upon which the 
order of detention is grounded go under the classification of public 
order or belong to the category oflaw and order. [432H; 434D-F] 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1985 of the Allahabad 
High Court in H.C.W.P. No. 16272 of 1984. 
Yogeshwar Prasad, D. Bhandari and_Vishal Jeet for the Appellant. 
R.K. Garg, Mohan Pandey and R.B. Misra for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave is 
directed against the order of the Division Bench o.f the Allahabad High 
Court by which it has quashed an order of detention of the respondent 
H 
• 
428 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A made under section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court relied upon a decision of a 
\ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
_F 
G 
H 
Full Bench of that Court in Ashok Di.xii v. State and others disposed of 
on 1.8.1985 being Habeas Corpus Petitioh No. !Jl61 of i984. for its 
conclusion that the detention of the respondent was bad in law. The 
majority opinion of the Full Bench, as far as.relevant said: 
"A solitary assault on one individual which may well be 
equated with ordinary murder can hardly be said to disturb 
· public peace or place public order in jeopardy so as to bring 
'· the case within the purview of the Act. lt can only raise a 
'law and order' problem and no more. Assaulting an indi-
vidual in a bus or train on account of enmity may affect 
only certain individuals; but if the assault is made indis-
criminately in the bus or train and passengers are harassed 
' indiscriminately, the same would be likely to endanger 
public order as this kind of incident is bound to have such 
impact that it will disturb the' even tempo of life of the 
'community. The act or incident which may be attnbuted to 
,the detenu may be reprehensible and yet if it concefl/S only 
specific individuals and it has no impact on the general 
members of the community and has no potentiality of dis-
turbing

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