KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No.2 herein, on 9.8.1997 passed an order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, Central Act 65 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'THE Act' in short), against the petitioner herein in order to prevent him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner has been detained at the Central Prison, Madurai. In the grounds of the order of detention, the facts and particulars which lead to the satisfaction to pass the impugned order, are stated in detail and we do not propose to reiterate the same, since, if done, it may swell the order to several pages.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shanmughavelayutham though invited our attention to several contentions urged in the petition, confined his submission only to three contentions, viz., (1) THE ground case on which the detenu has been detained does not constitute the ingredients of acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' and it may at best amount to the maintenance of 'law and order'; (2) THEre was no material to record the finding that the detenu was in remand on the date of detention and (3) As stated in the grounds of detention, though representations with postal acknowledgments through the Superintendent of Jail, with a request to despatch to all concerned were made, still remain undisposed of, except by respondent No.3.

(3.) THE scope of the expressions "public order" and "law and order" was considered by the Supreme Court in several decisions. In Ram Manohar's case, AIR 1966 SC 740, the Apex Court has held that whether the act relates to law and order or to public order depends upon the impact of the act on the life of the community or in other words the reach and effect and potentiality of the act if so put as to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community.