- (1.) JARNAIL Singh has been detained in pursuance of the detention order dated 15-4-1983 (Annexure P/l) of the District Magistrate. Amritsar passed under Section 3 (2) read with Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act. 1980 (hereinafter called the Act ). This order (Annexure P/l) was approved by the State Government on 22-4-1983 (Annexure P/2 ). The petitioner Balbir Singh brother of the detenu has prayed for the quashing of the order of detention in this criminal writ petition. The rules under which the detenu is being pain Rs. 5 as allowance are also sought to be quashed.
(2.) THE order of detention of the detenu is based on the grounds mentioned in Annexure P/3 in the following terms: You are an ardent extremist and belong to group of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala and extend help to them to enable that group to carry on illegal and violent activities. On the night between 15/16-3-1983 a police Nakabandi was held on Mananwala Drain Bridge on Sher Shah Suri Rd. under the command of Shri A. P. Pandey S. P. Detective. Amritsar At about 4. 45 a. m. a ieep No. DHE or DLE 2237 came from Amritsar side carrying the extremists namely Gurmukh Singh and his party. When Shri A. P. Pandey came forward to check the jeep, a person from the jeep fired and also threw a hand grenade and they escaped from the spot along with their jeep. In order to fulfil this object when accused Gurmukh Singh, the driver of jeep of Bhai Amrik Singh, Joginder Singh of village Rode and Anokh Singh alias Anokhe after causing the iniuries to Shri A. P. Pandey. S. P. Detective. Amritsar on Mananwala Drain Bridge came to your Behak on 16-3-1983 at 5. 30 a. m. along with the dead body of Sh. Hardey Singh in a military colour ieep, you harboured them and provided them the shelter, food, clothes and also arranged their transport in injured condition in the Mini Bus of S. G. P. C, Amritsar to Guru Nanak Niwas where they used to hide themselves in the past. At that time Gurmukh Singh was armed with a stengun and 38 bore pistol (revolver ). Anokh Singh @ Anokhe was armed with carbine whereas Joginder Singh of village Rode was armed with stengun and having a khaki jhola containing 10/15 hand-grenades. In this manner you helped the accused mentioned above with intention to destroy the evidence of crime to save themselves from arrest and legal punishment and also assisted them in their escape. All the above mentioned accused were on their mission to do away with Sh. D. R. Bhatti. SSP, Ludhiana and Sh. D. S. Mangat. DIG of Police and to create public disorder. In this connection FIR No. 132 dated 16-3-1983 Under Sections 307/148/149 IPC. 25/54/59 Arms Act. and 4/5 Explosives Act and case FIR No. 134 dated 20-3-1983 Under Section 212 IPC P. S. Jandiala were registered. On 24-3-1983 you were produced in the court of Shri A. K. Sharma Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Amritsar. When you were brought out of court, so many Akalis gathered there and you started addressing them and said that Khalistan is to be created separately from India and we are giving sacrifices for that purpose. You also exhorted the audience to join the force known as 'sir Maru Volunteer Force to the maximum so that the Govt. may be toppled. You also raised the slogans 'khalistan Zinda Baad Bomb Dhamake Karange Te Khalistan Lal Marange Khalistan Laina Hai Bharat Sada Desh Nahin Hai Khalistan Zinda Bad' Your above activities are prejudicial to the security of the State. In this connection case FIR No. 201 dated 24-3-83 Under Sections 124-A. 153-A and '9 of Security of State Act P. s. Civil Lines, was registered. The provisions of Section 3 of the Act authorise detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the grounds on which the detenu has been detained are not covered by Section 3 of the Act and they are also vague and irrelevant. It is therefore, submitted that the order of detention is vitiated.
(3.) IN order to understand the objection of the learned Counsel the meaning of the term 'public order' is to be understood as distinguished from the term 'law and order It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Pushkar Mukher-jee v. State of West Bengal. MANU/sc/0027/1968 , AIR1970 SC 852 , 1970 Crilj852 , (1969 )1 SCC10 , [1969 ]2 SCR635 that contravention of any law always affects order but. before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection a line of demarcation must be drawn between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals, and only in a secondary sense public interest, A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held in Awadh Kumar Shukla v. Supdt. of Central Jail 1983 Cri LJ 192 (at p. 201) as under: The ratio of public order and law and order much depends upon the impact of the Act. If the impact of the act is confined to individual only it may be a matter of law and order while if the act will have any impact upon a large section of the community the act will fall within the realm of the public order. It is the question of degree and the extent of the impact of the act upon the society which is vital. Public order embraced more of the community than law and order. One of the vital factors is to consider the effect of the act on the even- tempo of the life of the community. In its quality the act within the orbit of law and order may not differ from the act within the orbit of public order and it is always the matter of potentiality and similar acts in different contexts affect public order on the one hand and law and order on the other hand. Each case has to be considered in the light of the individual facts and circumstances with an eye to the impact of the act. Thus the test for determining whether the acts are connected with 'public order or law and order' is the impact upon the local community. Where the acts have the effect to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community or that specified locality those acts relate to public order and not to law and order.;