SUBHASH BHANDARI & ANR. ETC. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 03-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-{' 
SUBHASH BHANDARI & ANR. ETC. 
A 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.) 
B 
-" 
National Security Act, 1980: Section 3-Detention-Grounds of 
detention-Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority-Solitary 
-
criminal act-Whether and when can be taken into consideration for 
making detention order. 
,( 
.. 
The appellants were contractors for the snpply of ballast to PWD. c 
They were detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 
1980. It was stated in the grounds of detention that on account of 
bnsiness rivalry, appellants and their companions attacked the comp-
lainant with fire arms and hand grenades with intent to kill him, FIR 
was lodged by the complainant, a case was registered against them 
D 
under section 147, 149, 307 l.P.C. and section 6 of the Explosives Act, 
and a chargesheet put up against the appellants, and since they had 
applied for bail, and if released there was a possibility that they will 
again start activities causing breach of public order, it was necessary to 
, 
detain them in order to prevent them from so acting. 
.... 
E 
The detention orders were approved by the State Government 
under section 3(4) of the Act, and the representations made by the 
appellants having been rejected they were directed to be detained for a 
period of 12 months. 
Challenging their detention, the appellants filed writ petitions F 
\ 
before the High Court contending that the alleged assault on the comp-
lainant affected only an individual and such a solitary act could not be 
considered to be an act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 
The High Court, dismissing the writ petitions, held that tbe as-
sault was to teach a lesson to the complainant and serve as warning to G 
prospective tenderers who may not dare to submit their tenders and 
that the impact and reach of the act went beyond the individual and 
""'\ 
affected the community of contractors who take contracts for executing 
the public works. 
Allowing the appeals to this Court, 
H 
773 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{1988) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished 
from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the 
society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public 
tranquility. An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. 
In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality 
it may be different. [778C-D) 
B 
A solitary act of omission or comm1ss1on can be taken into 
consideration for being subjectively satisfied, by the detaining authority 
to pass an order of detention if the reach, effect and potentiality of the 
act is such that it disturbs public tranquility by creating terror and 
panic in the society or a considerable number of the people in a specified 
C locality where the act is alleged to have been committed. It is the degree 
and extent of the reach of the act upon the society whicll is vital for 
considering the question whether a man has committed only a breach of 
law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance to 
public order. [779A-C) 
p 
In the instant case, the alleged act of assault by fire arms is con-
fined to the complainant and not to others. It is an act infringing law 
and order and the reach and effect of the act is not so extensive as to 
affect considerable members of the society. In other words, this act does 
··-,... 
not disturb public tranquility, nor does it create any terror or panic in 
\... 
E 
the minds of the people of the locality nor does it affect in any manner 
the even tempo of the life of the community. This criminal act emanates 
from business rivalry between the detenus and the complainant. 
Therefore, such an act cannot be the basis for subjective satisfaction of 
the detaining authority to pass an order of detention on the ground that 
the impugned act purports to affect public order i.e. the even tempo of 
F 
the life of the community, which is the sole basis for clamping the order ) 
of detention. Moreover, no injury was caused to the person of the 
complainant, by the appellants nor any damage was caused to the car 
though hand grenade was alleged to have been thrown on the car. No 
mark has been caused to the car also. [778E-H] 
G 
Guiab Mehra v. State of U.P. & Ors., 4JT 1987 3 SC 559, applied. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 558 and 559 of 1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.85 o

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