Public order versus law and order controls preventive detention where isolated incidents do not justify detention

Preventive detention was held unsustainable because the recorded incidents were isolated law and order disturbances, not material showing prejudice to public order. The Court applied the distinction that every breach of law does not affect public order and that preventive detention cannot replace prosecution under ordinary criminal law. As the three stray incidents were unconnected, spread over more than a year, and insufficiently grave to disturb the even tempo of community life, the detention order was invalid and release followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order was sustainable where the grounds disclosed only isolated law and order incidents and not a disturbance of public order.

Analysis: The grounds of detention described three stray incidents spread over more than a year, none of which were shown to be interconnected or of such gravity as to affect the even tempo of community life. The distinction between law and order and public order was applied: every breach of law does not amount to prejudice to public order, and preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for prosecution under the ordinary criminal law. On the material supplied, the incidents were at best matters of law and order and did not justify detention under the preventive detention law.

Conclusion: The detention was invalid, as the grounds did not establish prejudice to public order. The writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was entitled to release.

---