# '•. BHOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH v. ARIF ALI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 277
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-11-15
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhopal-chandra-ghosh-v-arif-ali-and-others-6137
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A
B
c
D
E
F
.G
B
'•.
BHOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH
v.
ARIF ALI AND OTHERS
November 15, 1973
277
[S. N. DWIVEDI, Y. v. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. Gosw~; JJ.].
Ataintenance of Internal Securiiy Act, 1971-S. 3(2) read ·;,;iJJI 's'e~tt~'n. ; 3,
C 1) (a) (ii)-"Maintena11ce of Public Order"-Some of the growuU have M rela·
lion to public order-Order of detention if vitiated.
.
·
fhe p~titioner was detained under s. 3(2) read with a. 3(1)(~)(;.i)··~f·-·tho ·
A.faintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 with. a view to preventhia him from.
actin& in any manner prejudicial to the ''maintenance of public order"'.- ln one
of the grounds it was stated that the petitioner .. posed _a serious threat to the
security of the State and the maintenance of public order:• The·DCtitioner con•
tended that the order of detention was bad· because some of the grounds had
no relevance to public order.
· ·
.
Allowing the petition,
. HELD: (1) The order of detention· was invalid. Five out of ·16 grolHld.1
.are not shown to have any rational relation with public ordet.
SO.Dlcl of them
may perhaps have some connection with "law and order". But it has been.held
in a series of decisions of this Court that the concept of law and order is DOt
identical with the concept of public Order. ·Public order is an aggravated form
of disturbance of public peace. It affects the general current of public life.
The detention order was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the . detaitllng
authority and it was not possible to assess how far these five. grounds bad
swayed the mind of the District ]..fagistrate and tilted ·his judgment against the
detenu. To the intertwinin% of relevant and irrelevant .erounds of detention
the rule of severalty would not apply and the whole order of detention would
fall down.
[279B.C)
State of Bomba.Y v. Atma Ram Sridluzr Vaidya [1951] S.C.R. 167,
distin~
&Uished ..
(2) The detention order was passed in order to prevent the petitioner from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was
not made with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicially to the aecmity
of the State. But in the grounds of detention the District Magistrate ~pecitlcally
relied on security of State,
A conjoint reading of the detention order· and the
grounds of detention was suggestive of the inference that the District :h.iagistrate
had either· no information of the grounds relevant to the .security of the State
at the time of jthe passin&' of the detention order, or tha4 it he had illf'ormation
of those grounds, he did not believe them to be factually correct and accord-·:
ingly did not bottom· bis detention order on the..m.
In the first event. he could
not now seek 1to buttress his detention order by those grounds, becausQ the
detention order was made for the maintenance of public order only; in the aecond
event also, those ,trounds &bould be totally ignored. If he did not think lt proper
to rely on them while making the detention order, he could not deploy them
at a later date as another string to the bow. There is a difference between public
order and security of the State. Every breach of public_ order will not neces·
sarily atrect the security of the State. [279F-G]
·
· Dr. Ram J.,fanohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [19'6] 1 S.C.R. -109 at· page
746, Shibhan La.I Saxena v. The State c: Uttar Prtuksh, (1954) S.C.R. 411,
at p. 422, Motilal Jain v. State of Bihtir, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587 . at p. '$93
Pushkar Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal, [1969) 2 S.C.R. 635 A.nan.ta
Mukhl & Ananta Hari .v. State of West Bengal, [1972} 3 S.C.R. 379 and
Masood Alam v. Union of India, A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 897, refemd to.
.... ORIGINAL WR.tr JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1973.: .
..
Under Article 32 of the cOOstitution for issue of a Writ in the nature, '
. ,of bahcas corp~·
'
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
D. N. Mukherji and Rathin Das for the petitioner.
S. N. Chaudhury, for the respondents.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
.G
B
'•.
BHOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH
v.
ARIF ALI AND OTHERS
November 15, 1973
277
[S. N. DWIVEDI, Y. v. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. Gosw~; JJ.].
Ataintenance of Internal Securiiy Act, 1971-S. 3(2) read ·;,;iJJI 's'e~tt~'n. ; 3,
C 1) (a) (ii)-"Maintena11ce of Public Order"-Some of the growuU have M rela·
lion to public order-Order of detention if vitiated.
.
·
fhe p~titioner was detained under s. 3(2) read with a. 3(1)(~)(;.i)··~f·-·tho ·
A.faintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 with. a view to preventhia him from.
actin& in any manner prejudicial to the ''maintenance of public order"'.- ln one
of the grounds it was stated that the petitioner .. posed _a serious threat to the
security of the State and the maintenance of public order:• The·DCtitioner con•
tended that the order of detention was bad· because some of the grounds had
no relevance to public order.
· ·
.
Allowing the petition,
. HELD: (1) The order of detention· was invalid. Five out of ·16 grolHld.1
.are not shown to have any rational relation with public ordet.
SO.Dlcl of them
may perhaps have some connection with "law and order". But it has been.held
in a series of decisions of this Court that the concept of law and order is DOt
identical with the concept of public Order. ·Public order is an aggravated form
of disturbance of public peace. It affects the general current of public life.
The detention order was passed on the subjective satisfaction of the . detaitllng
authority and it was not possible to assess how far these five. grounds bad
swayed the mind of the District ]..fagistrate and tilted ·his judgment against the
detenu. To the intertwinin% of relevant and irrelevant .erounds of detention
the rule of severalty would not apply and the whole order of detention would
fall down.
[279B.C)
State of Bomba.Y v. Atma Ram Sridluzr Vaidya [1951] S.C.R. 167,
distin~
&Uished ..
(2) The detention order was passed in order to prevent the petitioner from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was
not made with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicially to the aecmity
of the State. But in the grounds of detention the District Magistrate ~pecitlcally
relied on security of State,
A conjoint reading of the detention order· and the
grounds of detention was suggestive of the inference that the District :h.iagistrate
had either· no information of the grounds relevant to the .security of the State
at the time of jthe passin&' of the detention order, or tha4 it he had illf'ormation
of those grounds, he did not believe them to be factually correct and accord-·:
ingly did not bottom· bis detention order on the..m.
In the first event. he could
not now seek 1to buttress his detention order by those grounds, becausQ the
detention order was made for the maintenance of public order only; in the aecond
event also, those ,trounds &bould be totally ignored. If he did not think lt proper
to rely on them while making the detention order, he could not deploy them
at a later date as another string to the bow. There is a difference between public
order and security of the State. Every breach of public_ order will not neces·
sarily atrect the security of the State. [279F-G]
·
· Dr. Ram J.,fanohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [19'6] 1 S.C.R. -109 at· page
746, Shibhan La.I Saxena v. The State c: Uttar Prtuksh, (1954) S.C.R. 411,
at p. 422, Motilal Jain v. State of Bihtir, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587 . at p. '$93
Pushkar Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal, [1969) 2 S.C.R. 635 A.nan.ta
Mukhl & Ananta Hari .v. State of West Bengal, [1972} 3 S.C.R. 379 and
Masood Alam v. Union of India, A.l.R. 1973 S.C. 897, refemd to.
.... ORIGINAL WR.tr JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1520 of 1973.: .
..
Under Article 32 of the cOOstitution for issue of a Writ in the nature, '
. ,of bahcas corp~·
'
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
D. N. Mukherji and Rathin Das for the petitioner.
S. N. Chaudhury, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
[ 1974] 2 s.c.&.
A
DWIVEDI, J.
It is a petition for a writ in the nature of habeas
corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner alleges that
he.is the acting President of the Council of the Displaced Bengalees
B
hvmg in the State of Assam .. On April 2, 1973, the District Magistrate
Sibasagar, Jorhat, in the said State, passed an order under s. 3(2) read
withs. 3(1) (a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
for detaining the petitioner in the Jorhat jail.
Accordingly, he was
so detained.
On April 3, 1973 the District Magistrate served the
grounds of detention on him.
The State Government approved the
order of detention.
c
The petition wa3 heard by us on October 30, 1973. After hearing
counsel for the parties we were of opinion that the petition should be
allowed. Accordingly, we passed an order directing the release of the
petitioner. Th·o reasons in support of the order are now set forth in
this judgrne11t.
The District Magistrate has detained the petitioner with a ·view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to "maintenance
of public order."
The sole argument before us is that some of the
grounds served on him by the District Magistrate have got no relevance to public order. Grounds of detention are 16 in number. Some
of the grounds do relate to public order, and it is not necessary to set
them out here. We shall mention only such grounds as, in our opinion,
have no relevance to public order. Those grounds are :
·
"(2) That he spoke ill of the State Government, and the
Assamese people in a camera meeting in the last part
of March, 1961 held at the residence of Shri Hemendra Ki shore Roy, J'orhat.
Then he was Secretary
of the Refugee Association, Assam. ·
(3) That he issued a Press Statement on 6-12-1971 on
the Pak atrocities in East Pakistan (Bangla Desh)
blaming General Yahaya Khan and the
American
Government. Another telegram was sent on 22-11-71
to Mr. Kenneth Keating, American Ambassador in
India, to. stop mass killing in East Pakistan.
( 6) That he challenged the census operation in Assam
and stated that the figures of Assamese population
were shown highly inflated at the cost of Bengalis.
(11) That he sent a telegram on 10-10-1972 to the Prime
Minister
India on the language movement in
Assam. ' The contents of the telegram were highly
exaggerated and false.
( 12) That he sent
another
ex~erated telegram on
31-12-1972 to the Prime Mintster, India requesti?g
her not to enter into any laJliuage settlemem w11h
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
JI. c. GHOSH v. ARIF ALI (Dwivedi, J.)
279
Cachar leaders. He signed the telegram as the Council's actini: President."
Counsel for the respondent could not satisfy us as to how a11y
one of these five grounds could have a rational connection with public
order. Some of them may perhaJ?S have some connection with '"law
and order". But it has been held m a series of decisions· of this Court
that the concept of law and order is not identical with the concept of
public order.
Public order is an aggravated form of disturbance of
public ,peace; It affects the general current of public life. In the result,
five out of 16· grounds are not shown to have any rational relation with .
public order. In other words, one third of the grounds are irrelevant.
The detention order is based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Accordingly we cannot assess how far these five
grounds have swayed the mind of the District Magistrate and tilted his
judgment against' the detenu.
To the intertw.ining of relevant and
irrelevant grounds of detention the rule of severalty would not apply,
and the whole order of detention will fall down.
There is yet another aspect which we cannot overloo)<. As already
stated, the detention order is passed in order to prevent tho petitioner
from actin11 in any mann~r prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. Professedly, it is not made with a view to preventing hii:n from
actin& prejudicially to the security of the State. But in . the grounds
of detention, the District Ma&istrate specifically relies on 11ecurity ef
State.
He says : '-'the above prejudicial activities .......... and the
sinister design of dislodging the present administration and hate
Assamese campaign has, posed a serious threat to the se<:urity of the
State and the maintenance of public order in the District of Siba·
sagar." Grounds Nos. 4, 8, 9 and 16 are indeed connected with the
security of the State.
A conjoint reading of the detention order. and the grounds of detenc
!ion is suggestive of the inference that the District Magistrate had
either no information of the grounds relevant to the security of the
State at the tinte of the passing of the detention order, or that, if .he
had information of those grounds, he did not believe them to be
factually correct and accordingly did not bottom his . detention
o~dcr
on them. In the first event, he cannot now seel< to buttress bis deten·
tion order by those grounds, because the detention order is made for
the maintenance of public order only; in the second event also, t]\ose
grounds should be totally ign0red. If he did not think it proper to
rely on them while making the detention order, he cannot deploy them
now as another string to the bow. There is difference between pub1ic
order and security of the State. Every breach of public order will
not necessarily affect the security of the State.
In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar( 1) Hidayatullah
J. has expressed this dit'lerence thus :
"One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law ·and
order represents the largest circle within whi.cb is the next
___:irclo representing public order and the smaliest circle re-
(l)t\966] I S.C.R. 709 at Pait 74'.
6-522 SCJ/14
280
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974] .2 S.C.R·
presents security of State. It is then· easy to see that an act
A
may affect law and order but not public order just as an
act .may affect public order but not security of the State."
Turning to cases cited ·at .the Bar, The State of Bombay v. Atma
Ram Sridhar Vaidya(') is distinguishable on facts. It is not conc.erned
with the question, of relevancy of the grounds of detention. Jn Shibban Lal.Saxena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(2) this Court observed :
"The detaining authority gave here two
grounds
for
detaining the petitioner. We can neither decide whether
these grounds are good or bad, nor can we attempt to assess
in what manner and to what extent each of these grounds
operated on the mind of the appropriate authority and con·
tributed to the creation of the satisfaetion on the basis of
which the detention order . was made. To say that the
· other ground, which still remains, is quite sufficient to sustain
the order would be to substitute decision of the executive
authority which is against the legislative . policy underlying
the statute . .In such cases we think, the position would be
the same as if one of these two growuls was irrelevant for
the purposes of the Act or was wholly illusory and this would
vitiate the detention order as a whole (emphasis added)."
The underlined observation fortiiies the view we are taking in this case.·
Jn Motilal Jain v. State of Bi/W(') the detenu was detained for
the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
The detention order was based on six grounds. This Court held that
two of the grounds could not be considered in judging the validity of
the detention order. When asked by the Government to maintain the
det·2ntion order on the basis of the four remaining grounds, the Court
declined to. do so,. and said : .
' "The defects noticed ....•••. are sufficient to vitiate the ·
order of detention impugned in these proceedings as it is
not possible to hold that those grounds could not have influenced the decision of the .detaining authority."
It will follow from these observations that the detention order in
·the present case cannot be upheld on the basis of the remaining grounds,
as we have taken thel view that five of the grounds served on the dctenu
have got no rational connection with maintenance of public order.
In Pushkar Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal(') Ramaswami
J. said:
"But there is no doubt that if any of the grounds furnished io the detenu are found to be irrelevant. . . . . . the
satisfaction of the detaining authority on which the order
of detention is based is open to challenge .and the· order is
liable to be quashed."
(I} [1951] S.C.R. 167. ·
(2) [1954] $.C.R. 4tS at p. 422.
(3) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587 at p 593.
· (4) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635 at p>ge 641.
B
C"
D
E
F
G
H
' ' '1 .,
'
•
r
A
B
B .. c. GHOSH v. ARIF ALI (Dwivedi, J .)
281
In Ananta Mll}chi @ Anania Hari v. State of West Be111al,(I) -
this Court held by majority-that the grounds of detention were relevant_
to the maintenance of public order and security of the State.
In Masood Alam v. Union of India,(') the detenu's argume,nt wu
that the ·grounds of detention were itrelevant to the maintenance of
public order and security of the State. But the Court did not accept
the contention.
As a result of the foregoing discussion, we are of opinion that the
order of detention is invalid and cannot stand.
Tlie petition is accordingly allowed.
(:
P.B.R.
Petition allowed,
(I) (1972) 3 S;C.11.. tl'·
Q) A.I.II.. 19?; S.C. 197.