THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. versus SMT. C. ANITA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 23-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. C. ANITA 
AUGUST 23, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land 
Grabbers Act, 1986-Section 3(2)-Detention under-Detention order 
mentioning that detenue was a history sheeter, 30 cases had been instituted 
against him and highlighted gravity of his acts in two specific instances- C 
Writ petition against detention-Detention order quashed by High Court-
on appeal, held : In the facts of the case detention order rightly made-
Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Detaining Authority when 
the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant. 
'Law and Order' and 'Public Order '-Distinction between-Discussed. 
'Preventive Detention '-Meaning, Nature and Object of-Held: It is 
preventive and not punitive-It is jurisdiction of suspicion-Satisfaction of 
Detaining Authority is of prime importance. 
Husband of respondent (detenu) was detained under Section 3(2) 
D 
E 
of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and 
Land Grabbers Act, 1986. Appellant filed Writ Petition on the ground 
that the alleged acts as highlighted in the order of detention could not F 
be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; and that 
since the incidents mentioned took place long back, there was no live 
link to warrant the detention order. High Court quashed the order of 
detention holding that even though there was proximity with the 
incidents highlighted in the detention order there was nothing to show G 
that those acts affected maintenance of public order. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that the detention 
order clearly showed that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial 
to the maintenance of public order; and that apart from the specific 
two instances mentioned in the detention order, nearly 30 cases were H 
701 
702 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A instituted against the detenu. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and 
does not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to 
B punish a person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel 
proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is not 
punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the Executive is 
convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the 
person detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects 
C which are specified by the concerned law. The action of Executive in 
detaining a person being only precautionary, normally the matter has 
necessarily to be left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is 
not practicable to lay down objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive 
manner, the failure to conform to which should lead to detention. The 
D Detaining Authority may act on any material and on any information 
that it may have before it. Such material and information may merely 
afford basis for a sufficiently strong suspicion to take action, but may 
not satisfy the tests of legal proof on which alone a, conviction for 
offence will be tenable. This jurisdiction has at times been even called 
jurisdiction of suspicion. The law has to be justified by striking the 
E right balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs 
of an orderly society on the other. [705-C-G; 706-A; 706-C] 
F 
Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda and Anr., [2004] 3 SCC 75, 
referred to. 
2. While an expression 'law and order' is wider in scope 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 pubic at large. The 
distinction between the areas of 'law and order' and 'public order' is 
G one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on 
society. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few 
individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of 
public, it could raise problem of law and order only. "Public order" 
is something more than ordinary maintenance of "law and order". 
H Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. Disorder 
COMMR. OF POLICE v. C. ANITA 
703 
is a broad spectrum, whic

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