For preventive detention there should be "public order" concern and not merely "law and order" problem: Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that for detention of an individual under preventive detention law, there should be apprehensions regarding the concerned person being a threat to "public order" affecting community at large and a mere 'law and order' concern would not be sufficient (Banka Sneha Sheela bvs State of Telangana)..A Bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy further said that a liberal meaning cannot be given to the term 'public order' in the context of a preventive detention statute. "There can be no doubt that for ‘public order’ to be disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder. Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects ‘law and order’ but before it can be said to affect ‘public order’, it must affect the community or the public at large," the Court said. The judgment was rendered in a challenge to a preventive detention order passed against a LLB graduate under Section 3(2) of Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act..The detention order was passed after the detenu had a First Information Report lodged against him under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in five cases and had secured anticipatory bail in all the cases.The detenu was alleged to have duped people by claiming he is a High Court advocate and convincing them to invest money promising good returns from stock market.The detention order stated that he was engaged in white collar offence and his free movement would hinder public order. .Public order is defined in the Explanation to Section 2(a) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act to be a harm, danger, alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or a grave widespread danger to life or public health.Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that at best only a ‘law and order’ problem if at all would arise on the facts of the case and not a ‘public order’ problem, and referred to certain judgments of the Supreme Court to buttress the same. He also argued that the detention order was totally perverse in that it was passed only because anticipatory bail/bail applications were granted.Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State of Telangana, argued that the detenu was a habitual fraudster who had created fear amongst the gullible public, and since he was likely to commit similar offences in future, it was important to preventively detain him, as ordinary law had no deterrent effect on him. Further, it was also submitted that he had infringed ‘public order’ as defined by the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act and had disturbed the even tempo of life of persons who were cheated by him and were likely to be cheated by him.The Supreme Court in its judgment examined the scope of the term “public order”.The expressions ‘law and order’, ‘public order’, and ‘security of state’ are different from one another, the Court said. "It cannot seriously be disputed that the Detenu may be a “white collar offender” as defined under Section 2(x) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, yet a Preventive Detention Order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order," the judgment stated. Further, preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the statute in question. Hence, a liberal meaning cannot be given to the expression ‘public order’ in the context of a preventive detention statute, the Court underscored. "On the contrary, considering that preventive detention is a necessary evil only to prevent public disorder, the Court must ensure that the facts brought before it directly and inevitably lead to a harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof at large," the Court ruled..The Bench stated that if a person is granted anticipatory bail wrongly then the State can always appeal against the bail order granted or apply for cancellation of bail. But grant of anticipatory bail cannot be a ground for preventive detention. “There can be no doubt that the harm, danger or alarm or feeling of security among the general public spoken of in Section 2(a) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act is make believe and totally absent in the facts of the present case.”.While quashing the detention order, the top court stated that though there is a possible apprehension of breach of law and order if the detenu is set free, but it “certainly cannot provide the springboard to move under a preventive detention statute.”.[Read judgment]