Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the detention order under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 was valid on the ground that the detenu's activities affected public order and not merely law and order.
Analysis: The grounds of detention disclosed two violent incidents: an armed robbery of passengers in a running train and an armed attack with bombs and weapons on police personnel at a railway station, both of which created terror, panic, and confusion among the travelling public. Applying the settled distinction between law and order and public order, the Court held that the test is whether the act disturbs the even tempo of community life and causes a general disturbance of public tranquility. Acts of this nature, involving violence in public places and affecting innocent bystanders, were found to have a direct impact on the community at large and were comparable to earlier cases where similar conduct had been held to prejudicially affect public order.
Conclusion: The detention order was valid, as the incidents were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and not confined to a mere breach of law and order.
Ratio Decidendi: Violent acts that create terror and panic among the public in a locality or public transport setting may validly be treated as prejudicial to public order when they disturb the even tempo of community life and public tranquility.