# Sameer & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1574
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-16
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 741 of 2025
- **Bench:** J. J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sameer-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54690
- **Pages:** 16

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 58,104. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

1574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the
minors, who are above five years of age, have been residing with the father since the year 2022. No
exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been brought on record to indicate that their custody
is illegal or detrimental so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction. The remedy of habeas corpus cannot be permitted to be used as a substitute for the
remedies available under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890, where a detailed adjudication on the issue of custody, guided by the welfare of
the child, can appropriately be undertaken.

19. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is not
maintainable and no interference is called for.

20. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1574
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J. J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 741 of 2025

Sameer & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioner has been detained by the Detaining Authority, exercising jurisdiction under Section
3(3) of the NSA, without application of mind and the offence attributed to the petitioner is a petty offence,
triable by Magistrate, which even if established to have been committed by him, would constitute no more
than a violation of the law and order.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus); The National Security Act, 1980-
Section 3(3) & 12-The offence committed by the petitioner was not an offence of the ordinary
violent kind, that affected the life of one individual or a group of them, unconcerned with the
stable life of the community, which would go on unruffled by his actions. He had committed an
act that aroused public outrage amongst a large section of the population in the locale, whose
religious feelings were hurt. This kind of an offence, if repeated again, about which the
Detaining Authority had material to believe that it could be done by the petitioner upon his
release, would certainly imperil the even tempo of life of the locality, and, a fortiori public order.
In this regard, the nature of the offence has to be borne in mind very discretely. The offence
committed by the petitioner, produces almost spontaneous violence and resentment from one
section of the community and, therefore, the Detaining Authority was absolutely justified in
thinking that the petitioner, upon his release from jail, could indulge in activity, prejudicial to the
4 All. Sameer & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1575
maintenance of public order- No unexplained delay occurred, which might vitiate the detention
order.

Held- No infirmity in the order impugned, directing the petitioner's detention under the NSA.
 Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1966 SC 740; Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., (1970) 1
SCC 98; Shaukat Ali v. Union of India and others, 2002 SCC OnLine All 1435; Tauqeer v. State of U.P. and
others, 2002 SCC OnLine All 230; Guddu Panchhi v. District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2004 SCC
OnLine All 1847; Wasi through Mohd. Rafi v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 SCC OnLine All 1880;
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, (1991) 1 SCC 128; T.V. Sravanan v. State, (2006) 2 SCC 664 ;
Champion R. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya, (2015) 16 SCC 253;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The National Security Act, 1980

List of Keywords
Section 3(3); NSA; Committed offence: Aroused public outrage; Religious feelings were hurt; Detaining
Authority; Justified in thinking; Upon release on bail; Petitioner could indulge in activity, prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order

Case Arising From
Writ of habeas corpus has been preferred by the detenue through his father, against his detention ordered by
the District Magistrate, Shamli, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, vide order dated
15.05.2025, and confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 12.06.2025 made under Section 12(1)
of the Act.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadava, Narendra Kumar
 Counsel for Respondent(s) : Manish Pandey, G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J. J. Munir, J.)

1. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been preferred by Sameer through his father,
Shamshad, against his detention ordered by the District Magistrate, Shamli, under Section 3(3) of
the National Security Act, 1980, vide order dated 15.05.2025, and confirmed by the State
Government vide order dated 12.06.2025 made under Section 12(1) of the Act last mentioned.

2. The facts, giving rise to this petition, would show that it all began with a police party,
headed by Sub-Inspector Gyanendra Singh on routine duty to maintain law and order and serve
processes etc. while passing through the jungle in Village Lavvadaudpur, Police Station Jhinjhana,
District Shamli, coming across the remains of cows progeny, lying in the field of one Sandeep son
of Aval Singh on 15.03.2025, soon after 10.10 a.m. The police party, who came across the remains
of cows' progeny, found 11 dismembered feet, four tails, parts of the head, besides parts of skin and
a wooden block. The police team called Veterinary Medical Officer, Dr. Imran Ansari over his
mobile phone to identify the remains. The Veterinary Medical Officer reached the spot and
identified the remains as ones of the cows progeny, regarding which he said he would make a
separate report. The police team in the FIR, that they got registered with P.S. Jhinjhana, said that
1576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the remains were found at the specified location, and that some unknown men had slaughtered the
cows progeny, on the basis of which Crime No. 99 of 2025, under Section 3/8 of the Uttar Pradesh
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955'), P.S. Jhinjhana, District
Shamli, was registered. It was also recorded in the FIR that the remains were secured by the Police
and upon directions of the Veterinary Medical Officer, in order to prevent foul stench, besides
disease from spreading, interred after digging up earth. The wooden block was marked and taken
into custody.

3. It is next said in the FIR that Holi was around and the incident had led to unrest amongst the
Hindu population, necessitating detailing of force to maintain peace. It was also said in the FIR that
a memo of recovery was prepared on the spot and signed by members of the police party. In fact, it
is the aforesaid memo, relating to recovery of remains of the cows progeny, that was registered as
the check FIR, giving rise to the crime.

4. The grounds, upon which the impugned detention is founded, are indeed detailed and
recount all happenings and circumstances, leading to the petitioner's incarceration. Since other men
were involved in the crime, that led to the petitioner's detention, and they too were similarly
detained, the grounds carry reference to those others as well. Therefore, it may not be relevant for
us to refer to the entire gamut of facts that the grounds carry. We propose to refer to only so much
of whatever is said in the grounds as is relevant to the petitioner's detention under the National
Security Act, 1980 (for short, 'the NSA'). After a copious reference to the discovery of the offence
by the police team and whatever is said in the FIR, it is mentioned in the grounds that post
registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer left for the place of occurrence, and upon
reaching there, saw that at the field of Sandeep Kumar located in the jungle of Village
Lavvadaudpur, a big crowd of people had congregated. Amongst them, members of the Hindu
populace had frayed tempers, who were reasoned with and pacified.

5. The Investigating Officer then set about the task of finding out the identity and location of
the offenders. The police informers were summoned for the purpose and necessary instructions
issued to them. The Station House Officer, P.S. Jhinjhana, upon learning of this happening, reached
the spot, accompanied by members of his companion force. The S.H.O. again found a big crowd
gathered at the place of occurrence and they were livid about the incident of cow slaughter. The
crowd, that had now gathered, had representatives of various associations present, including Hindu
organizations, such as the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal, the Pashchimi Uttar Pradesh Sanyukt Udyog
Vyapar Mandal, the Shiv Sena Mandal Saharanpur Unit, the Akhil Bharatiya Pradhan Sangthan.
Members of these organizations were shouting slogans and demanding the immediate arrest of the
offenders responsible for the crime. This crowd blockaded the Jhinjhana-Thana Bhawan Road,
leading to a long queue of vehicles on both sides of the blockade. The passersby and the travellers
were much troubled. This jamming of the road on account of the blockade lasted for long hours, in
consequence of which public order in the area was torn asunder.

6. Upon receiving information, the Circle Officer, Kairana, also reached the spot/ place of
occurrence, along with members of his companion force and attempted to pacify the enraged
members of the crowd. In the meanwhile, information of this incident was relayed to the nearby
police stations and additional forces from those stations, such as Thana Bhawan, Garhi Pukhta,
4 All. Sameer & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1577
Thana Babri, arrived. They were detailed around the place of occurrence and the enangered
villagers were assured about their own safety and that of their cattle. Police force had to camp at
villages Naya Gaon, Dathaida, Gangarampur Khedki, Lavvadaudpur, Shamli-Shamla, Panthupura,
Jijaula, Ballamajra, Toda, Khodsama and Laxmipura. The Police maintained surveillance in these
villages, in order to ensure that the disturbed public order resulting from this incident could be
restored.

7. The Investigating Officer on the 16th of March, 2025 learnt through a police informer that
five men were involved in this incident of cow slaughter. They were Iqbal son of Rashid, Jaane
Alam son of Sagir, Javed son of Islam, Wasim alias Gullu son of Salim, and Sameer son of
Shamshad (the petitioner). All of them had together, according to the informer, committed the
offence. By and by, the investigation proceeded and raids were made by the Police to interrogate
men, whose names had surfaced in connection with the crime.

8. For a first, the Police went to the homes of Iqbal and Jaane Alam, one after the other,
looking out for them, but they were not there. The relatives did not give any information as to their
whereabouts. Next, the Police went to Javed's house, but he too was not found at home. His
relatives did not give any information as to his whereabouts. On 16.03.2025, upon an informer's tip
off that the offenders, responsible for the incident of cow slaughter, would be proceeding from
Chausana to Mundet, carrying illicit weapons on them, and that they could be caught if a checking
exercise was strictly undertaken, the Police went to the place of their reported movement. To
shorten the narration of events, three of the men, said to be involved in the incident, were seen
riding a motorcycle, and upon being challenged to stop, attempted to escape, accelerating the
vehicle. They then turned aggressive, when it was apparent that they were surrounded by the police
party, and opened fire. The policemen barely escaped unhurt and in the return fire, some of the
offenders were injured. They were overpowered and apprehended. The apprehended men disclosed
their names as Javed son of Islam, Iqbal son of Rasheed and the third, who was caught after a
chase, revealed his name as Raees son of Mumtaj. All of them had firearms on them, besides
mobile phones, the details of which are not very relevant to the controversy involved here. All the
three were arrested.

9. On 16.03.2025 at 23:12 hours, the arrested men were interrogated, who disclosed that in the
night intervening 12/ 13.03.2025, the three of them, along with Waseem @ Gullu son of Saleem
and Sameer son of Shamshad (the petitioner), had slaughtered a cow and two calves, that were
roaming free, doing this act in the jungle of Village Lavvadaudpur, precisely a sugarcane field. The
flesh of the slaughtered progeny of the cow was sold, fetching them a sum of Rs.20,000/- in
proceeds. A sum of Rs.5,999/- was utilized to buy a mobile handset, which was recovered from
Iqbal and the residue was equally shared by all the offenders. It was also revealed that today when
apprehended, they were planning to slaughter cows, roaming free in the jungle. The arrest of the
three offenders and whatever they revealed was recorded on a mobile phone by Sub-Inspector
Gyanendra Singh, the mobile carrying SID No. 2724984928831148. On the basis of these facts, a
separate Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 109(1) B.N.S. and 3/25/27 of the Arms Act was
registered vide G.D. No. 4 at 2:20 a.m. on 17.03.2025 at P.S. Jhinjhana, District Shamli.
1578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Next on the information received, the petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2025 at 9:55 a.m.
He is a young man of 20 years and a search of his person, led to the recovery of an illicit knife.
Upon inquiry being made about the knife, the petitioner is said to have stated that if during a cow
slaughter, someone chances upon him, the knife is used to threaten the man away. The petitioner
too, upon being interrogated, revealed that he along with his brother-in-law (sister's husband),
Javed and his companions Iqbal, Jaane Alam and Gullu, had slaughtered cows in the night
intervening 12/13.03.2025 in the jungle of Village Lavvadaudpur. Since those men were caught,
the petitioner reportedly said that he was going to a friend to hide himself, but was caught. The
petitioner was arrested on the spot and charged with Section 4/25 Arms Act, as he was in the
possession of an illicit knife. Later on, being involved in Crime No.99 of 2025, under Section 3/8
of the Act of 1955, he was challaned in that case also.

11. It is also said in the grounds of detention that the petitioner's arrest and recovery were
captured on a mobile phone, using the e-evidence application by Head Constable 578 Ashish
Kumar, leading to generation of SID No. 2782061293382277. It is also said in the grounds of
detention that information of his arrest was given to his family members, whose name was
furnished by the petitioner. The memo of arrest and recovery was typed out by the Investigating
Officer on his mobile phone, using notepad and forwarded to Head Constable 578 Ashish Kumar
on his mobile phone. Two sets of printouts were taken out at Police Chowki Chausana, employing
the official printer provided there. Once the printout of the memo of arrest and recovery was
available, it was read out to all the members of the police party, who signed the same. A copy of
the said memo was provided to the petitioner after securing his acknowledgment on the duplicate.
The last of the co-accused Waseem @ Gullu son of Saleem was apprehended after exchange of fire
with the Police on 27.03.2025.

12. It is next said in the grounds of detention that news of the cow slaughter in Village
Lavvadaudpur spread like wildfire in that village and the adjoining villages of Naya Gaon,
Dathaida, Gangarampur, Khedki, Panthupura, Jijaula, Laxmipura, Ballamajra, Toda and
Khodsama, leading natives of the said village and workers of various organizations/ Hindu
organizations to rush to the spot. Upon seeing the remains of the cow and their progeny, they were
enraged. This event coincided with the festival of Holi, which led to religious feelings of the
villagers being hurt. They let out their anger by resorting to slogan shouting and blockading the
Thana Bhawan-Jhinjhana Road completely. This cause a formidable road jam and on both sides of
the blockade, a long queue of vehicles, all standstill was there. The passersby and travellers, caught
in this traffic jam, were severely distressed and the public order was completely disturbed. Upon
receipt of information, the S.H.O., P.S. Jhinjhana along with police force posted at the Chowki and
higher officials of the police reached the spot in order to attempt to pacify the crowd that had
gathered there. Police summoned from the adjoining police stations was detailed to duty in
maintaining public order and the villagers were assured about the safety and security of their
animals, all towards an endeavour to restore public order.

13. The prevalent conditions on the spot are evident from copies of reports registered at Police
Chowki Chausana, P.S. Jhinjhana, memoranda handed over to the Police/ Administration by the
various Hindu organizations, the material collected in the cases registered, including statements
recorded and documentary evidence, besides intelligence collected from the adjoining villages by
4 All. Sameer & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1579
speaking to the locals there and that secured through informers. It is also said in the grounds that
the incident was widely reported in various newspapers, which are annexed to the grounds.

14. It is next mentioned in the grounds that Head Constable 578 Ashish Kumar and Head
Constable 361 Mukesh Kumar, upon return from their beat, had got G.D. No.20 at 7:25 p.m.
registered, saying that the petitioner had got information conveyed through his close relatives from
the jail that he would be soon released on bail by this Court, and upon being released from jail,
would again commit cow slaughter and that the Police could not harm him. This beat information
was entrusted for investigation to Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar, who found that the information
carried correct facts. In addition, the report submitted by the Local Intelligence Unit dated
29.04.2025 also verified the same facts as carried in the beat report.

15. It is then said in the grounds that the petitioner was in jail in connection with Case Crime
No. 99 of 2025, under Section 3/5A/8 of the Act of 1955 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act,
incarcerated in the District Jail, Muzaffar Nagar, but was regularly endeavouring to secure his
release on bail. It is noted that a bail application was filed before the Lower Court, which was
rejected, and then the Sessions Judge was moved, seeking bail. The Sessions Judge too rejected the
petitioner's bail plea. Now, the petitioner had moved this Court and there are strong chances that
the petitioner would be enlarged on bail.

16. It is said that the petitioner was consistently endeavouring to secure his release on bail.
The fact that the petitioner was so endeavouring is verified by the report of P.S. Jhinjhana. The beat
information and its verification, besides the Local Intelligence Unit report dated 29.04.2025, also
verify the fact. It is next recorded in the grounds that it is, thus, evident that the petitioner's release
is nigh. His criminal propensity makes it evident that once released from jail, there is likelihood of
commission of such offences that public order in the local limits of P.S. Jhinjhana and the adjoining
areas would again be vitiated. The detaining Authority then says that on the basis of the aforesaid
facts and grounds, he was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner's release from jail could happen
soon, and that upon release from jail, there was likelihood of his committing such offences, which
are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In order to prevent him from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him.

17. The grounds then go on to inform the petitioner of his right to represent to the District
Magistrate and the State Government under Section 8 of the NSA. It was also clearly conveyed that
in the event the petitioner wished to exercise his right to represent to the Detaining Authority, he
could do so promptly through the Superintendent of Jail, where he was detained. Such a
representation, if moved within 12 days or before the approval of the detention by the State
Government, whichever was earlier, would be considered by the Detaining Authority. The right to
represent to the State Government could be exercised by the petitioner by moving the Secretary,
Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, through the Superintendent of the Jail,
wherever the petitioner was detained.

18. The grounds further informs the petitioner that under Sections 9 and 10 of the NSA, if he
wished to represent his case before the Uttar Pradesh Advisory Board, Lucknow, he could do so
through the Registrar, U.P. Advisory Board, Lucknow, addressing him. The representation could be
1580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
moved through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he was detained. The petitioner was further
informed that the matter would be referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 within three
weeks of the petitioner's detention and his representation, if received with delay, would not be
considered by the Board. The petitioner was also informed that under Section 11(1) of the NSA, if
the Advisory Board thought it fit or the petitioner desired so, he could be heard in person. If the
petitioner wanted a personal hearing before the Board, he must specifically mention it in his
representation, which would have to be made through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he was
detained and presented to the State Government. The petitioner was informed that under Section 14
of the NSA, he had a right to represent his case against the detention to the Central Government. If
the petitioner desired to invoke this remedy, he could do so by making a representation, addressed
to the Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of India through the Deputy Secretary (Security),
Security Department, Sector 11 Building, Jaisingh Road, near Regal Park, Jantar-Mantar, New
Delhi, moving the said representation through the Jail Superintendent.

19. On the basis of these grounds, the District Magistrate, Shamli, passed a detention order
under Section 3(3) read with Section 3(2) of the NSA, directing the petitioner to be detained in
District Jail, Muzaffar Nagar. Since the petitioner's representation against his detention to the
Advisory Board was rejected, the State Government, in exercise of their powers under Section
12(1), confirmed the detention order, directing the petitioner to be detained for a period of 12
months w.e.f. 15.05.2025.

20. Aggrieved, this habeas corpus writ petition has been preferred.

21. The writ petition was presented before the Registry on 11.08.2025 and all defects were
removed on 19.08.2025. It came up before the Division Bench for admission on 23.08.2025, when
a show cause was issued, asking the respondents to answer why the detenue be not set at liberty. By
an order dated 22.09.2025, the Union of India was directed to be impleaded. The petition then came
up again on 13.10.2025, when the Court noticed that affidavits, so far as the State of U.P. and their
officials were concerned, have been exchanged. The petition was admitted and posted for hearing
on 28.10.2025. By that time, the Secretary, Ministry of Home, was granted time to file a counter
affidavit. The petition was adjourned once on 28.10.2025. On 03.11.2025, the Union of India filed
their counter affidavit, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner waived his right to file a rejoinder
to the said affidavit.

22. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deepak Mishra,
learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Mr. Manish Kumar Pandey, learned Central
Government Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

23. The foremost point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds of
detention in support of the detention order indicate that the petitioner has been detained by the
Detaining Authority, exercising jurisdiction under Section 3(3) of the NSA, without application of
mind. The next submission is that the offence attributed to the petitioner is a petty offence, triable
by Magistrate, which even if established to have been committed by him, would constitute no more
than a violation of the law and order. There is no material to show that the petty offence, of which
the petitioner was a part, could or did lead to vitiation of public order. Since, there is no case more
4 All. Sameer & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1581
than that of a violation of the law and order, the prosecution launched against the petitioner would
test the petitioner's guilt or otherwise. There is absolutely no basis to invoke the NSA and detain
the petitioner without trial, it being evident that there was no violation of public order. It is next
argued that there was no material to show that the petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would again
indulge in commission of the offence of cow slaughter, endangering the maintenance of public
order in future. There being no objective material in this regard, the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining Authority is clearly vitiated on account of being based on no material.

24. The petitioner alleges that he represented his case in the exercise of his statutory right to
the State Government and the Advisory Board, but there was inordinate delay in the decision of his
representations by the Government and the Board, vitiating the detention.

25. Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A., has refuted the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner and submitted that the detention order has been made well within the requirements of
the law. He has taken us through the various affidavits and the material, upon which the order of
detention is founded.

26. So far as the submission that the impugned order is one made without application of mind,
we do not think that, that is the case. A perusal of the grounds of detention show that there is a
copious consideration not only of the crime disclosed in the FIR, giving rise to Crime No.99 of
2025, but the circumstances of the occurrence and its impact in the locale, where the offence was
committed, vis-a-vis the issue of public order. All of this has been meticulously considered by the
Detaining Authority. This is not a case, where there is a mechanical recital of the fact alone that the
offence constitutes a violation of public order, but shows due application of mind to the offence and
its impact in the locale on the maintenance of public order. It is also not the case that the Detaining
Authority has proceeded to pass the detention order without application of mind to the
requirements of the law, after describing the ramifications of the offence in the locale. The
Authority has held it to be an act that vitiated public order. It is also remarked by the Authority on
the basis of material before it that it was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner was attempting to
secure his release on bail and there was likelihood of his being released on bail. It is then said that
the material further showed that the petitioner intended to repeat the offence by capturing stray
cows, which if done, would again lead to the public order being prejudicially affected. All these
features, which figure in the grounds of detention, make it evident that this is not a case, where it
can be said that the order of detention has been passed without application of mind. The first point
urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, negatived.

27. This takes us to the next submission that the crime reported against the petitioner, on the
foot of which the impugned order of detention has been passed, is no more than an instance of the
violation of law and order; not an incident, which prejudically affects public order, so as to entitle
the respondents to detain the petitioner without trial, invoking the provisions of the NSA.

28. We must remark here that in the genesis of every event, that is an infraction of the public
order or its vitiation, there is some crime punishable by law, which can always be termed as a
violation of law and order. The violation of law and order is, of course, to be punished in
accordance with law after prosecuting the offender, but this does not mean that every infraction of
1582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the law and order, that spins out of its trouble spot and widely affects the even tempo of life, is to
be regarded as a violation of law and order alone. Whether a violation of the law and order would
be just that and no more or have a cascading effect, unsettling the even tempo of life in the locale,
or even far and wide, is dependent upon the circumstances, the time, the place and the situation,
where the infraction is committed. The point is well elucidated in the celebrated decision of the
Supreme Court in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1966 SC 740, where
their Lordships of the Constitution Bench held:

"54. We have here a case of detention under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules which
permits apprehension and detention of a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. It follows that if such a person is not detained public disorder is the
apprehended result. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but
disorder is a broad spectrum which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most
serious and cataclysmic happenings. Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of
disorders or only some of them? The answer to this serves to distinguish "public order" from "law
and order" because the latter undoubtedly takes in all of them. Public order if disturbed, must lead
to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards
quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers
to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public
order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise
communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of
public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order
but before if can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action
under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District
Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(1)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but
not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances.

55. It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was
said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State", "law and
order" also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public order". One has to
imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the
next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then
easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public
order but not security of the State. By using the expression "maintenance of law and order" the
District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of
India Rules.

29. The point is again considered in Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., (1970) 1 SCC 98, where the
concept of public order, as distinguished from law and order, has been eloquently explained by
their Lordship thus:

'3. The submission of the counsel is that these are stray acts directed against individuals and
are not subversive of public order and therefore the detention on the ostensible ground of
preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order was not justified. In support of
4 All. Sameer & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1583
this submission reference is made to three cases of this Court: Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of
Bihar [(1966) 1 SCR 709]; Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B. [WP No. 179 of 1968, decided on
November 7, 1968: (1969) 1 SCC 10] and Shyamal Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police,
Calcutta [WP No. 102 of 1969, decided on August 4, 1969: (1969) 2 SCC 426]. In Dr Ram
Manohar Lohia case [(1966) 1 SCR 709] this Court pointed out the difference between
maintenance of law and order and its disturbance and the maintenance of public order and its
disturbance. Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. Public
order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a
specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against
individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public
tranquillity. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life of the community in a locality
which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. Take for
instance, a man stabs another. People may be shocked and even disturbed, but the life of the
community keeps moving at an even tempo, however much one may dislike the act. Take another
case of a town where there is communal tension. A man stabs a member of the other community.
This is an act of a very different sort. Its implications are deeper and it affects the even tempo of
life and public order is jeopardized because the repercussions of the act embrace large sections of
the community and incite them to make further breaches of the law and order and to subvert the
public order. An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ
from another but in its potentiality it may be very different. Take the case of assault on girls. A
guest at a hotel may kiss or make advances to half a dozen chamber maids. He may annoy them
and also the management but he does not cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a
fracas with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of law and
order only. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his
activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their
ordinary business are afraid of being waylaid and assaulted. The activity of this man in its essential
quality is not different from the act of the other man but in its potentiality and in its affect upon the
public tranquillity there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely
places causes a disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public
order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of
their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely
committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. It
means therefore that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or
has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and
the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. The French distinguish law and order and public
order by designating the latter as order publique. The latter expression has been recognised as
meaning something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Justice Ramaswami in Writ
Petition No. 179 of 1968 drew a line of demarcation between the serious and aggravated forms of
breaches of public order which affect the community or endanger the public interest at large from
minor breaches of peace which do not affect the public at large. He drew an analogy between
public and private crimes. The analogy is useful but not to be pushed too far. A large number of
acts directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of public order. In Dr Ram
Manohar Lohia case examples were given by Sarkar and Hidayatullah, JJ. They show how similar
acts in different contexts affect differently law and order on the one hand and public order on the
other. It is always a question of degree of the harm and its affect upon the community. The question
1584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount a
disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the
society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on facts. There is no formula by
which one case can be distinguished from another.

30. There are some issues, where the community is sensitive to the extent that if these surface,
there is an inherent potentiality of creating widespread ripples in society that would affect the even
tempo of life. One of them is cow slaughter. The slaughtering of a cow, whenever reported or
detected, spontaneously evokes strong emotions and violent reactions for obvious injury to
religious beliefs of a large section of the society. History is replete with instances of profusion of
emotions and violence that an incident of this kind entails. And, it is not that these are matters of
historical record to be read in books or fancied about in contemporary world. Violent reactions at
the happening of cow slaughter are so well reputed that no one can feign ignorance of the fact,
violation of the law apart. Public order is after all not about what the intention of the individual
was, or what law he has violated. It is about the impact that his act generates. If the act in question
is such that it is not confined to one, two or a few individuals, but disturbs the even tempo of life in
the locale or may be beyond, in larger areas, prejudice to public order, is certainly there. The
particular act of slaughtering a cow, as already remarked, has immediate and widespread
ramifications in society, almost always leading to widespread violence that takes toll on a tranquil
society and throws life out of gear.

31. There are a series of decisions of this Court, which acknowledge the fact that cow
slaughter foments communal tension, brings disharmony and results in a situation, that leads to
disturbance of public order. The point is elucidated in a few words in the Bench decision of this
Court in Shaukat Ali v. Union of India and others, 2002 SCC OnLine All 1435. In Shaukat Ali
(supra), it was held:

'1. ..... A perusal of the grounds of detention copy of which is Annexure 2, shows that the
allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner had slaughtered a cow and the knife and
rods were recovered from him. This incident caused communal tension and hence the impugned
detention order was passed.

2. Communal amity and harmony are absolutely essential for the progress of the nation. We
cannot afford to have another Gujarat in U.P. Slaughter of cow hurts the sentiments of the Hindus
and hence should not be committed. In our opinion cow slaughter affects public order because it is
likely to incite communal tension.

3.