# KUSO SAH v. TI:IE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 195
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-11-08
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1973
- **Bench:** S. N. Dwivedi, Y. V. Chandrachud, P. K. Goswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kuso-sah-v-ti-ie-state-of-bihar-ors-6128
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 32-Habeas Corpus-Petitioner detained for
rwo reas~ns : n1ailuenance .of public 01'tier and maintenance of essential supplies
nnd ~·erv1ces-Two out of three Rrounds in resoecr of first reason found irrelei·ant-Held elltire order of detention is illegal aS the two reasons cannot be
bifurcated.
The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated April 2
19~3. p~ed by the District Magist·rate, Monghyr, with a view to preventing the
petitioner from ·"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
,order. and the maintenance of supplies a.nd services essential to the community."
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, 1973 were divid~
-ed· into two parts, the first relatir..g to public order and the second to essential
'Supplies and services. Two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first part
set out fac~ which referred respectively to a stray incident on a JYUblic street
and an assault on a public servant. The petitioners challenged the order of
,detention by a lnabeas corpus petition in this Court.
AUowing the l)etition,
HELD : ( 1) The two concepts 'law and order' and
'public order' have
well defined contours.
Stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are
not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of
public life. InfractioriS of law are bound in "Some measure to lead to disorder
but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in pubJic disorder. "Law
and order"' com{'rehcnds disorders of less gravity than these affecting "public
order", jnst ·as "public order" •comprehends disorders of less gravity than thoso
affectin~ "security of State.".
[196G]
-
Pushkar Mukherjee and otht:r1 v. The State of West Bellgal [1969) 2 S.C.R.
635, 642 and Dr. Ram Manoher Lohia v:. State of Bihar and Others (1966] 1
S.C.R. 709. 746, noferied to.
(2) Two of the grounds on Which the order of detention rests bear no ra~
tional connection with "public order'', in the interests of which the petitioner
was ordered to be detained.
The order of detention expressly states that it
·was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner
·:Prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies
and service essential to the community, and the District Magistrate was· satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at large be will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community.
The two
reasons maintenance of
public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, cannot therefore be bifurcated and considered in separate compartments.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority embraces both the reasons
and since two out of the thr.ee grounds mentioned in the first part! are irrelevant,
the entire order is illegal. [179D, 1980]
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors.
v.
The State of West Bengal [1969] 2 S.C.R.
635. 642 and Motilal Jain v. State of Bihor & Ors. [l9681 3 S.C.R. 587, 593,
referred to.
H
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1973.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a Writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 2 S.C.R.
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the petitioner.
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.-By this petition for the writ of habeas corp.us,
the petitioner challenges an order of detention dated April 2, 1973
passed by the District Magistrate, Monghyr with a view to preventing
the petitioner from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the mainten·
ance of public order and the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community''.
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, \ 9·7-3are divided into two parts, the first part referring to acts prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order and the

## Text

A
B
c
0
F
G
195
KUSO SAH
v.
TI:IE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
November 8, 1973
[S. N. DWIVEDI, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.j
Constitution of India Art. 32-Habeas Corpus-Petitioner detained for
rwo reas~ns : n1ailuenance .of public 01'tier and maintenance of essential supplies
nnd ~·erv1ces-Two out of three Rrounds in resoecr of first reason found irrelei·ant-Held elltire order of detention is illegal aS the two reasons cannot be
bifurcated.
The petitioner was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated April 2
19~3. p~ed by the District Magist·rate, Monghyr, with a view to preventing the
petitioner from ·"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
,order. and the maintenance of supplies a.nd services essential to the community."
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, 1973 were divid~
-ed· into two parts, the first relatir..g to public order and the second to essential
'Supplies and services. Two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first part
set out fac~ which referred respectively to a stray incident on a JYUblic street
and an assault on a public servant. The petitioners challenged the order of
,detention by a lnabeas corpus petition in this Court.
AUowing the l)etition,
HELD : ( 1) The two concepts 'law and order' and
'public order' have
well defined contours.
Stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are
not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of
public life. InfractioriS of law are bound in "Some measure to lead to disorder
but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in pubJic disorder. "Law
and order"' com{'rehcnds disorders of less gravity than these affecting "public
order", jnst ·as "public order" •comprehends disorders of less gravity than thoso
affectin~ "security of State.".
[196G]
-
Pushkar Mukherjee and otht:r1 v. The State of West Bellgal [1969) 2 S.C.R.
635, 642 and Dr. Ram Manoher Lohia v:. State of Bihar and Others (1966] 1
S.C.R. 709. 746, noferied to.
(2) Two of the grounds on Which the order of detention rests bear no ra~
tional connection with "public order'', in the interests of which the petitioner
was ordered to be detained.
The order of detention expressly states that it
·was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner
·:Prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies
and service essential to the community, and the District Magistrate was· satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at large be will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community.
The two
reasons maintenance of
public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, cannot therefore be bifurcated and considered in separate compartments.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority embraces both the reasons
and since two out of the thr.ee grounds mentioned in the first part! are irrelevant,
the entire order is illegal. [179D, 1980]
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors.
v.
The State of West Bengal [1969] 2 S.C.R.
635. 642 and Motilal Jain v. State of Bihor & Ors. [l9681 3 S.C.R. 587, 593,
referred to.
H
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1607 of 1973.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a Writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 2 S.C.R.
P. K. Chatterjee and Rathin Das, for the petitioner.
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.-By this petition for the writ of habeas corp.us,
the petitioner challenges an order of detention dated April 2, 1973
passed by the District Magistrate, Monghyr with a view to preventing
the petitioner from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the mainten·
ance of public order and the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community''.
The grounds of detention served on the petitioner on April 6, \ 9·7-3are divided into two parts, the first part referring to acts prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order and the second to those projudicial
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
Two out of the three grounds mentioned in the first part read
thus:""'.""
"(b) On 20-1-71 at about 2 A.M. he and his brother,
Garib Sao were leading two trucks with stolen Railway property in a car bearing No. WBJ 6949. On the railway crossing near Jamui Rly. Station other standing trucks on the road
caused a bottleneck in his hurried journey. This led to a clash
and his men assaulted the truck drivers and threatened them
with fire arms. Some 15 of his men were arrested then and
there by the Police with the help of the public while he managed to escape along with his brother in the car bearing
No. WBJ 6948. This car is registered in the name of his
brother Rabig Sao. A case was registered in this connection
vide Lakshmipur P.S. Case No. 9(1) 71 dated 20-1-71.
( c) He assaulted Shri Ram Singh as an Rai, Asst. Suptd.
Commercial Taxes, Intelligence Branch, Bhagalpur who had
gone to his factory in course of his duties and discharge of
his legal obligations as Asst. Suptd. Commercial Taxes Intelligence Branch and in connection therewith he has been ar·
rested in Jamalpur P.S.
case No. 21 dated 29-8-72 u/s
143, 333, 307, 325 etc. I.P.C."
These acts may raise problems of law and order lout we find it impossible to see their impact on public order. The two concepts have
well defini;d contours, it being well established that stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since
they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of
law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction
of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. As observed in
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal{I), a line of
demarcation must be drawn between serious and aggravated forms of
disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively. minor breaches of peace of a purely local signi-
(1) [19691 2 S.C.R. 635, 642.
A
B
cD,
E
F
G
H
.A
.:JI
c
D
E
F
G
H
KUSO SAH v. BIHAR (Chandrachud, J.)
197
ficance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secon·
dary sense public interest.
In Dr. Ram· Manohar Lohia v. State of
Bihar and Ors., (') Hidayatullah, J. has expressed this concept picturesquely by saying that 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 the
security of State.
"Law and Order" comprehends disorders of less
gravity than those affecting "public order'', just as "public order" comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of
State".
The facts set out in ground (b) of the first part refer to no more
·than a stray and simple fracas arising out of a traffic bottleneck on a
public street. Those set out in ground (c) refer to an assault on a
public servant, undoubtedly reprehensible if true, but not of the kind
that would reasonably affect public order.
Thus, two of the grounds on which the order of detention rests
bear no rational connection with "public order", in the inter•!Sts of
which the petitioner was ordered to be detained.
This Ccurt in Pushkar
Mukherjee's case observed : "that it is well established· that the constitutional requirement that the grounds must not be vague must be
satisfied with regard to each of the grounds ...... and therefore even it
one ground is vague and the other grounds are not vague, the deten·
tion is not in accordance with procedure established by law and is
therefore illegal. The power to detain a person without the safeguard
of a court trial is too dr.astic to permit a lenient construction and therefore courts must be astute to ensure that the detaining authority does
not transgress the limitations subject to which alone the power can be
exercised. In Mofilal Jain v. State of Bihar & Ors.(2 ) this Court observed : "the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be
properly based on all the reasons on which it purports to be based. If
some out of those reasons are found to be non-existent or irrelevant,
the court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the exclusion of those reasons. To uphold
the order on the remaining reasons would be to substitute the objective
standards of the court for the subjective satisfaction of the authority."
The order of detention expressly states that it was passed with a
view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the community. The statement of grounds contains
at the end the assertion that the District Magistrate was satisfied that if
the _petitioner w.as allowed to remain at large he will indulge in acti-
(1) [!966] I S.C.R. 709, 746.
(2) [1968] 3 S. C.R. 587, 593.
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 19·74] Z s.c.a.
vities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and supplies and
services esseniial to the community.
(emphasis supplied). The rwo
reasons, maintenal\ce of public order and maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the community, cannot therefore be bifw·cated and
considered in separate compartments. The subjective satisfaction of
the detaining authority embraces both the reasons and since two eut
of the three grounds mentioned in the first part are irrelevant, the entire
order is illegal.
For these reasons we set aside ihe order of detention. We had ear·
lier directed on the conclusion of the arguments that the petitioner be
set at liberty forthwith.
S.B.W.
Petition allowed:
A
c