SUJEET KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. K. Misra, J. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 3-12-2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.

(2.) IN the grounds of detention, Annexure-1 to the supplementary-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was District President of Hindu Yuva Vahini and was habitually involved in flaring and spreading communal riots. On 14-10-2005 at about 8 p. m. the petitioner alongwith hundreds of supporters, some of whom were habitual criminals, shouted slogans 'jai Sri Ram' and gave speech impregnant of inciting communal frenzy. The supporters of the petitioner looted houses of many Muslims and ablazed shops and houses. The members of police force deployed in the area were very few and the number of rioters was much higher. The situation became out of control. People ran hither and thither. When a large contingent of police force from adjoining district was called for and deployed, then only the situation could be controlled. The riot spread in the area and the situation became alarming. The public order of the district was badly disturbed. Atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed. Out of panic, shops were closed and people remained inside. Curfew had to be imposed to control the situation. The situation continued to be tense.

(3.) THE sole ground pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the incident could only relate to law and order and not public order. He contended that the ground taken up by the detaining authority for passing impugned detention order against the petitioner is that by the act of the petitioner, the communal riot spread in the district and public order was badly affected, but the fact is that the curfew was imposed in the city from before the present incident involving the petitioner. On this basis, he argued that the petitioner was not responsible for spreading communal riot in the district. He emphasized on this fact and argued that the incident related to the question of law and order only and had nothing to do with public order.