ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been placed before this Bench on the orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice in the following background:

(2.) Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would contend that the solitary instance mentioned in the grounds of detention would not be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

(3.) Per contra, Mr. I. Subramaniam, learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that even a solitary incident forming part of number of acts of a particular individual is sufficient to pass an order of detention, if such an act is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Detaining Authority has to see whether the particular act of a person would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and for the said purpose, even a single incident is sufficient to attract the provisions under the Act. The learned Public Prosecutor would further contend that the Statute does not make any distinction between the ground case and the other adverse cases and as such, there is no bar for the Detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction to the effect that a single act of an individual would be sufficient to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Subbaiah v. The Commissioner of Police, Madras City, 1993 LW(Cri) 113.