Public order threshold in preventive detention was not met where alleged offences amounted only to law and order breaches.

Preventive detention is sustainable only where the alleged acts affect public order by causing a wider community impact and disturbing the even tempo of life in the locality. Offences confined to specific individuals, even if serious, remain matters of law and order unless their reach and potentiality extend to the public at large. On the facts, the land-grabbing and cheating allegations did not cross that threshold, so the detention order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the preventive detention law was sustainable when the alleged criminal acts were only breaches of law and order and not prejudicial to public order.

Analysis: The grounds of detention rested on two pending criminal cases involving land-grabbing and cheating-related offences. The Court applied the settled distinction between law and order and public order, holding that public order is affected only when the act has a wider impact on the community and disturbs the even tempo of life in the locality. Offences directed against specific individuals, even if serious, do not automatically amount to disturbance of public order unless their reach and potentiality extend to the public at large. On the facts, even if the allegations were accepted as true, the activity attributed to the detenu did not cross the threshold from law and order into public order.

Conclusion: The detention order was unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

---