# ARUN GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-12-02
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 287 of 1969
- **Bench:** M. Hjdayatullah, A. N. Grover, A. N. Ray, I. D. DuA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arun-ghosh-v-state-of-west-bengal-4914
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950), s. 3(2)-Mo/estation of individual women and assaults on other individuals-Whether breach of public
order-Va/idit.v of detention.
The appellant molested two respectable young ladies threatened their
father's life and assaulted two other individuals.
He was detained under
s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 in order to prcvent'him
from acting prejudicially to the mainte.nance of public order.
On the question of the legality of the detention.
HELD : 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 society,
The test is : Does it lead to a disturbance of the
even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount to a
disturbance of the public order, or, does it affect merely an individual
without affecting the tranquillity of society. [290 H; 291 Dl
In the present case, however reprehensible
the
appellant's
conduct
might be, it did not add up to the situation where it may be ·said the
community at large was being disturbed.
Therefore, it could not be said
to amount to an apprehension of breach of public order, and hence, he
was entitled to be released. [291 G-H]
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] I S.C.R. 709, relied
upon.
Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal,
[1969] 2
S.C.R. 635 and Shya111al Chakr(lborty v. ·con1111issioner of Police, Calcutta
& Anr. [1970] I S.C.R. 762, referred to.
ORIGINAL Ju~,ISDICT!ON : Writ Petition No. 287 of 1969.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
A
c
D
E
F
Janendra Lal, for the petitioner.
G
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu. for the respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J.
The petitioner Arun Ghosh . has been
detained by the District Magistrate Maida under s. 3 ( 2) of the
Preventive Detention Act. The order was made on June 2, 1969
and he was arrested the following day.
The order states that it
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
ARUN GHOSH v. WEST BENGAL (Hidayatu!lah, C.J.)
289
was made to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order.
His representation was rejected by the
Advisory 'Board and also independently by the State Government.
We have looked into the case and are satisfied that there was
no undue delay at any stage in dealing with the various aspects
of his detention as laid down in the Act.
It is, however, contended that the grounds which were furnished to him on June 3, 1969 do not bear upon the maintenance
of public order or of his acting prejudidally to the maintenance
of public order. This i~ the only point urged in support of the
petition by the learned counsel. In the affidavit filed in reply the
District Magistrate has summarised the grounds as
'anti-social
activities including rioting, assault and
undue harassment to
respectable young ladies in the public street of Maida town.' The
details of these activites are to be found in the grounds and may
be summarised as follows :
18-5-1966-Teased one Rekha Rani Barna, and
when her father protested confined and assaulted him.
29-3-1968-0ne Deepak Kumar Ray was wrongfully restrained and assaulted with lathis and rods.
1-4-1%8-Attempt was made to assault Deepak
Kumar Ray at the Maida Sadar Hospital where he was
being treated for his injuries in the previous assault.
2-9-1968-Threatened one Phanindra C. Das that
he would insult his daughter publicly.
26-10-1968-Embraced Uma Das d/o Phanindra
C. Das and threw white powder on her face (Criminal
case started).
7-12-1968-0bscenely teased Smt. Sima Das, sister
of Uma Das and beat her with chappals.
18-12-1968-Smt. Sima Das was again teased.
26-1-1969-Threatened the life of Phanindra C.
Das.
The submission of the counsel is that· these are stray acts
directed against individuals and are not subversive of public order
and therefore

## Text

288
ARUN GHOSH
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
December 2, 1969
[M. HJDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND
I. D. DuA, JJ.]
Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950), s. 3(2)-Mo/estation of individual women and assaults on other individuals-Whether breach of public
order-Va/idit.v of detention.
The appellant molested two respectable young ladies threatened their
father's life and assaulted two other individuals.
He was detained under
s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 in order to prcvent'him
from acting prejudicially to the mainte.nance of public order.
On the question of the legality of the detention.
HELD : 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 society,
The test is : Does it lead to a disturbance of the
even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount to a
disturbance of the public order, or, does it affect merely an individual
without affecting the tranquillity of society. [290 H; 291 Dl
In the present case, however reprehensible
the
appellant's
conduct
might be, it did not add up to the situation where it may be ·said the
community at large was being disturbed.
Therefore, it could not be said
to amount to an apprehension of breach of public order, and hence, he
was entitled to be released. [291 G-H]
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] I S.C.R. 709, relied
upon.
Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal,
[1969] 2
S.C.R. 635 and Shya111al Chakr(lborty v. ·con1111issioner of Police, Calcutta
& Anr. [1970] I S.C.R. 762, referred to.
ORIGINAL Ju~,ISDICT!ON : Writ Petition No. 287 of 1969.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
A
c
D
E
F
Janendra Lal, for the petitioner.
G
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu. for the respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J.
The petitioner Arun Ghosh . has been
detained by the District Magistrate Maida under s. 3 ( 2) of the
Preventive Detention Act. The order was made on June 2, 1969
and he was arrested the following day.
The order states that it
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
ARUN GHOSH v. WEST BENGAL (Hidayatu!lah, C.J.)
289
was made to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order.
His representation was rejected by the
Advisory 'Board and also independently by the State Government.
We have looked into the case and are satisfied that there was
no undue delay at any stage in dealing with the various aspects
of his detention as laid down in the Act.
It is, however, contended that the grounds which were furnished to him on June 3, 1969 do not bear upon the maintenance
of public order or of his acting prejudidally to the maintenance
of public order. This i~ the only point urged in support of the
petition by the learned counsel. In the affidavit filed in reply the
District Magistrate has summarised the grounds as
'anti-social
activities including rioting, assault and
undue harassment to
respectable young ladies in the public street of Maida town.' The
details of these activites are to be found in the grounds and may
be summarised as follows :
18-5-1966-Teased one Rekha Rani Barna, and
when her father protested confined and assaulted him.
29-3-1968-0ne Deepak Kumar Ray was wrongfully restrained and assaulted with lathis and rods.
1-4-1%8-Attempt was made to assault Deepak
Kumar Ray at the Maida Sadar Hospital where he was
being treated for his injuries in the previous assault.
2-9-1968-Threatened one Phanindra C. Das that
he would insult his daughter publicly.
26-10-1968-Embraced Uma Das d/o Phanindra
C. Das and threw white powder on her face (Criminal
case started).
7-12-1968-0bscenely teased Smt. Sima Das, sister
of Uma Das and beat her with chappals.
18-12-1968-Smt. Sima Das was again teased.
26-1-1969-Threatened the life of Phanindra C.
Das.
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 wa~
not justified. In suooort of this submission reference is made to
three cases of this Court: Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of
Bihar('); Pushkar Mukherjee and Others v. State of West Bengal(2) and Shyamal Chakraborty v. The Commissioner of Police,
(I) [1966) I S.C.R. 709.
(2) [1969]2 S.C.R. 635.
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 3 S.C.R.
Calcuta and Another('). In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's case this
Court pointed out the difference between maintenance of law and
order and its disturbance and the maintenance of public order
and its disturbance. Pubiic order was said to embrace more of
the coinmunity 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
effect 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 tlie 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 d~er and
it affects the even tempo of life and public order is jeopardized
because the reperc11ssions 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 evep 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 coastant danger and fear. Wonien 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 disturbanc.e in the even te~po of living "'.hich is the !first requirement of
pubhc 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
(I) [!970] I S.C.R. 762.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
-
H
ARUN GHOSH v. WEST BENGAL (Hidayatullah, C.l.)
291
of. \he act. upon the society.
The French distinguish law. and
oi'Qer and public order by designating t!ie latter as o~!ler publ1q~e.
ne latter expression haS been recogmsed as meanmg someth~ng
more than ordinary maintenance of law
and order.
~usuce
Ramaswami in Writ Petition No. 179 of 1968 drew a bne 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 no~ affect
the public at large.
He drew an anal_ogy between public and
private crimes. The analogy is useful bnt 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's (1 ) 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 effect upon the community. The question to ask is : Does
it lead to di~turbance of the current of life of the community so
as to amount to 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.
In the pr~ent case the acts of the petitioner affected the family
of Phanindra C. Das and also two other individuals who were
assaulted. The case is distinguishable from Writ Petition No. l02
of 1969 where three instances of rioting armed with lathis, iron
rods and acid bulbs etc. were held sufficient to disturb the even
tempo of public life in that' locality and were treated as disturbance of public order. On the other hand in Writ Petition No.
179 of 1968 assaults on four persons A, B, C and D and throwing a cracker into a ·police wireless van were not held to· add up
to the disturbance of public order. They were treated as separate
acts which affected individuals but did not affect the community
at large.
In the present case all acts of molestation were directed against
the family of Phanindra C. Das and were not directed against
women in general from the locality. Assaults also were on individuals. The conduct may be reprehensible but it does not add
up to the situation where it may be said that the community at
large was being disturbed or in other words there was a breach
of public order or likelihood of a breach of public order. The
case falls within the dictum of Justice Ramaswami and the distinction made in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's case(')
The result therefore is that however reprehensible the conduct of Arun Ghosh may be, it cannot ·be said to amount to an
(I) [1966] I S.C.R. 709.
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970) 3 S.C.R.
apprehension of breach of pub11c order for which alone his deten•
A
tion could be ordered. He is entitled to be released and we order
accordingly.
He will be released forthwith unless required in
some other connection.
V.P.S.
Petition allowed.
B
,
-