Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. The State of Maharashtra & Othrs.  has held that high threshold required to justify preventive detention it should only be permissible when public order is disturbed. 

What was the Background of the Arjun v. The State of Maharashtra & Others Case?   

• Arjun Gaikwad (appellant) was detained by the District Magistrate of Parbhani under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA).  
• The detention order was issued for a period of twelve months, with the stated purpose of preventing Arjun from engaging in bootlegging activities and maintaining public peace. 
• The detention was primarily based on six separate cases registered against Arjun by the State Excise Department between January and October 2023.  
• These cases were related to the illicit manufacture of handmade liquor, specifically under various sections of the MPDA. 
• Notably, despite these six cases, the Excise Authority had not arrested the appellant at any point.  
• The grounds of detention were communicated to Arjun on 5th March 2024.  
• The detention order was subsequently approved by the Home Department on 14th March 2024, and confirmed by the Government of Maharashtra on 8th May 2024. 
• The detention order also relied on statements from two unnamed witnesses. These witnesses claimed that: 
  • The appellant had been producing handcrafted liquor for several years. 
  • His activities were causing problems for government machinery. 
  • People were afraid to file complaints against him. 
  • The witnesses alleged personal encounters with Arjun involving threats related to his liquor business. 
• The Appellant challenged this detention order, arguing that: 
  • There was no genuine nexus between his alleged activities and the detention order. 
  • There was a significant time gap (about two and a half months) between the detention proposal and the actual order. 
  • The authority acted mechanically without substantial material evidence. 
  • The alleged activities did not constitute a genuine threat to public order and could be handled by regular law enforcement. 
• The appeal was dismissed by the Bombay High Court aggrieved by the decision the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Distinction between Law & Order v. Public Order: 
    • The Court extensively discussed the distinction between law and order and public order, referencing previous landmark judgments like Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966). 
    • The Court emphasized that not every breach of peace leads to public disorder. 
    • They described public order as a "concentric circle" within law and order, where an act might affect law and order but not necessarily public order. 
  • Criteria for Public Order Disturbance: 
    • For an act to qualify as a disturbance to public order, it must: 
      • Have an impact on the broader community. 
      • Evoke feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. 
      • Disturb the "current of life of the community." 
  • Assessment of the Present Case: 
    • The Court observed that all six cases were related to illicit liquor manufacture 
    • Notably, despite six cases, the Excise Authority never found it necessary to arrest the appellant. 
    • The witness statements were found to be: 
      • Vague 
      • Stereotypical 
      • Essentially describing personal conflicts rather than broader community threats. 
  • Preventive Detention Principles 
    • The Court reiterated that preventive detention is a harsh measure. 
    • It should not be used when ordinary law and order machinery can handle the situation 
    • The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be substantiated with clear evidence of public order threat 
• The Supreme Court in this case held that the Court ultimately concluded that the appellant did not constitute a threat to public order therefore, the detention order was deemed unjustified. 
  • The Court quashed both the High Court's order and the original detention order  

What are the Key Differences between Law & Order and Public Order?