Supreme Court of India
DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
- Citation
- [2003] 1 S.C.R. 442
- Decided
- 20 January 2003
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Holding
A solitary assault does not meet the threshold of disturbance of public order required for preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, and the detention order is therefore invalid.
Summary
The petitioner, an under‑trial prisoner for theft and robbery, was detained under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 on the ground that he had pelted stones at the public while committing a robbery, allegedly creating alarm and threatening public order. He challenged the detention under Article 32, arguing that a solitary incident did not amount to a disturbance of public order and violated his rights under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution. The State contended that the act created a sense of insecurity and that his release on bail could lead to a repeat of such conduct, justifying preventive detention. The Supreme Court held that the disturbance of public order must be assessed on the degree and extent of the act, and a single assault on an individual does not ordinarily jeopardise public peace; there was no material showing the incident affected the even‑tempo of the community. Consequently, the detention order was deemed invalid, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether a solitary instance of robbery involving stone‑pelting constitutes a disturbance of public order sufficient to justify preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act.
- Whether preventive detention is permissible when the accused is already in judicial custody as an under‑trial prisoner.
- Whether the detention infringes the constitutional guarantees of life and liberty under Article 21 and the procedural safeguards of Article 22(5).
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 22(2), s. Article 22(5), s. Article 32
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 379
- Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug‑Offenders, Forest‑Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum‑grabbers Act, 1982s. 2(1), s. 3(1), s. 3(2)
Subjects
preventive detentionpublic orderArticle 21Article 22solitary offencedegree of disturbanceTamil Nadu Actcriminal procedure
Judgment
~ r ,f!/_/i I.;.{ :/.~il.}i . f 1 /'<r".-:.j}ftJ f(J t-; ·1·,. ·, /j_)j ,,'.f.• ~JI I-~
A/\ ,:DARPAN:rKUMARiSf!ARMA1@ 1 DHA.1~BAN :~UM,A..R~SHARMA
iii .,:10! nA rn111Jkfl::l'llWU ti~>ld• !>i :, V.;, ·.:.'.,-;·; .-ul L Jll!"J:~·- 1q sun t i;r1 Jnslhqot
t;111; :Jui::"'; m·J~&T.j\.J:;E .OFcJAiyUL-:NA.OiJrAND1.0R.&: !w11n ,,,/fiJWJ :ra11u'1
~i rJ:..il(!·,, ,'~OiJ11~;~ '!, u f:... rn;d uf i~Jd ....1 1 :• 0 ~ 1nc~r~ il>f" b!,1orf,., ~ // .'J1tit·.,,; JnJ
..
''·' ,f) ::d1 tif:F d.)!;'i ,di lA~JJ,AR)/' 1:20•. '.:2:993,lii Ir. t/.::: ,; Jll1 t- .,. l •:1 f ·) I
'"t.JLJ JO.• <!:..P-1 f{;,c.)t ;~t ~f'.,: 1 JjJ'·:;t!j ~~::'.t. ... n..Jrl:.! .Hr.: JI'"'.. 11,;j•./. <..J~·~:}f!j •M,-~fr:"CL)
... BH ,~J~.)y\JJ:~QM.. ~e.~~ 1.~P~r~,-¥~~~b T.i~M~;rwpg~.J.V j~() l:>i!
t,;LJ .!1~,.n~ !Jfl5 ?t:i!!:.>1 'Jfh Lf·;c.·r!"l 01 ·:Ji/Qr~:,:~, --.J1;af 2{R·lltr; ("j~UOJ :;d~ .i"'.;~:.:.11r_) { +
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 21, 22(2) and 32/Tamil Naaif-··
Pr~y~'}:~i'!r!;,PJ;P.ffngerq,~, ~g~!ti~i!s !Jof.if}ppfj~gg<;!§~.c:lJr!!.~'"o/Jg!'fi.e~fo ff.orest
C ) 0flf!~d.t;rs~:1 Q,'?,~'J<f.<!f.;_,f.'!J.'!1.'l;~'!J.J.~flff},c,pfl~'!<f.'frf,: l!,'?!!, §f;u'!J r~!:?Mrtf;A;%: I?~~~·H
Sectwns 2(f), 3 and 3(2): .,,
t.~~_,_•{~J
-·• .,., ,.,; .. ,,.1 c.,-1· •Ir.·,.-.
:....,. , ,,Jll-. ,.J
1 , ,,, J ·ri·•JJ! 1
.J!.i! 1 ,;;!.,
f.~l.r ~.1'~1 J
r l~1:ITT'.!!~{!°Y<;. 1 ffefention of accused-Challenge to-Writ Petition-H,els{._f'
When a wrongful act committed by the accused, the degree and extent of such
act and its effect upon the Society is judged to come to the conclusion whether
D such act was likely to cause disturbance ofpublic order-Preventive detention
of accused is not justified on a solitary instance of pelting stones against
public while committing robbery-Direction for release of detenu ordered-
Penal Code 1860; Section 379.
Petitioper-accused was an under trial prisoner, he having committed
E offences of theft and robbery. The competent authority (detaining
authority) passed an order of detention against accused under Section 3
of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug-offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders and
Slum grabbers Act, on the ground that he pelted stones against public
while committing offence and his release on bail would be prejudicial to
.F the maintenance of public order. Hence the present writ petition.
It was contended for the petitioner that since it was a solitary
instance of robbery which was not of such magnitude and intensity having
any effect of disturbing the public order, right to life and liberty of detenu
G was violated by the preventive detention order.
On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the detenu pelted stones
against the public and created scare after a committing the offence of
robbery. and to prevent him from indulging in such activities, he was
detained; and that his release on bail would be prejudicial to the
H maintenance of public order.
442
D.K. SHARMA.v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU 443
Allowing the writ petition, the Court ·, A
HELD: I." Any disorderly behaviour of a person 'in the public or
commission of a criminal offence is bound, to some extent, affect the peace
prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order but the same
need not affect maintenance of public order. The.question whether a man
has' only committed a breach of la~ and order or· ti~s 'a~ted in ~. ma nner . B. 1
0
:. - .••. ,. ' ' '· l . )j , 1 • ' ·- - ' ..
likely to.cause disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and
th~ ext~nt of the r~ach of the a~i upon the society; that a solitary assault
on' one individual ca~ hardly be said to disturb publi~ peace or place ~ubli~
ord;r in'j~opardy so~s to bring the ~ase within tbe'purView of the Tamil
:;... . , ' ' . I .- . . .. • . . ~
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, C
Forest offenders, Goondas, tmmoral traffic ~ffenders and slum grabbe,.;.
·, ~ JI . '
·• . - ' ' . •
ACt providing for preventive detention. [445-D, F) ...,
.a .
2. In the instant case, the three alleged incidents of th~fts arising
under . 'section
' , 379 of Indian
:
Penal Code. h·ave been
. referred and there is
only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have rol/bed one . D
perso~ in a public place. There is no material on record to show that the
reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to
disjurb the even.tempo or'normal life of the ~ommunity in the locality or
)i' • ' " ..- ' ' ' . ' - . .•
disturb
_,
general
· J• •
peace
.i
and tranquillity
· •
or Icreate
, •
a --sense of ·alarm
· ··
and
'-'
.
insecurity in the locality. Though in.the grounds of detention the detaining E;
a~thori.ty had stated that by committing this offence in public th~ detenu .
created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of
the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order which affected the even tempo of life of the
community, but citation of these words in the order of detention is-more
in. the nature of a ritual rather than with any significance to the content F
of the matter. j445-G, H; 446-A, BJ
3. The so!ita_ry instance of robbery as mentioned in the gr(,lunds of.
detention is not _relevant for, sustaining the orde_r of ~etention for the
purpose of preventing the petition~r from acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. 1446-B) G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 8712002.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) ·
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 1 S.C.R.
A S.B. Upadhyay and Ms. Kumud Lata Das with him for the petitioners.
A.V. Rangam and Mrs. Revathy Raghavan with him for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\
B RAJENDRA BABU, J. In this petition tiled under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking for quashing of an order made
under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest offenders, Gonndas, Immoral traffic
offenders and Slum grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] read with orders issued by the Government
C on 18th January, 2002 under Section 3(2) of the Act. The petitioner claims
to be a resident of Delhi. He does not know Tamil language nor any member
of his family is conversant with the said language.
+
The detention of the petitioner is attacked on the ground that a solitary
D instance mentioned in the grounds of detention is not of such magnitude and
intensity as to have the effect of disturbing the public order so as to pass an
order under Section 3(1) of the Act; that the petitioner is already in judicial
custody and is in jail as an under-trial prisoner and a mere possibility of his
release on bail is not enough for the detaining authority to pass the impugned
order; that the detention of the petitioner affects his right to life and liberty
E guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and is also violative of Article
22(5) of the Constitution.
In the return filed on behalf of the State, the Commissioner of Police
submits that the petitioner came for adverse notice in three cases registered
at various police stations, that is, in crime No. 377/2002 under Section 379
F IPC falling within the jurisdiction of Periyamedu Police Station, crime No.
512/2002 under Section 379 IPC coming within the jurisdiction ot Chennai -+
Central Railway Station Police Station and crime No. 332/2002 under Section
379 IPC coming within the jurisdiction of Tambaram Railway Police Station;
that in the present case, he was found committing robbery of Rs. I 000 from
G one Kumar at the point of knife and disturbing even tempo of life of the
public; that after his arrest when he was examined, he admitted about the
commission of these offences and was produced before the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai and was thereafter lodged at the Central· Y
Prison, Chennai as an under-trial prisoner. The contention that the detention
of the petitioner is based on the solitary instance is refuted on the basis that
H in addition to the ground disclosed in the order of detention there were three
D.K. SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 445
other cases registered at different Police Stations against the petitioner. The A
.... Commissioner of Police stated that he was found committing robbery from
one Kumar at the point of knife and when the public rushed to apprehend
him, he picked up stones and pelted the same against the public and created
a scare affecting the even tempo of the life of the public and as such his
activities would fall within the scope of Section 2(1) of the Act and to prevent
him from indulging in such activities in future he was detained under the Act;
B
that though the petitioner was detained in prison, likelihood of his being
released on bail was an imminent possibility enabling him to indulge in
similar activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order and the normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of
effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in such activities. c
The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the decisions
of this Court in Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1988) I
SCC 436 and T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1990) 2 SCC
456.
D
The basis upon which the petitioner has been detained in the instant
case is that he robbed one Kumar at the point of knife a sum of Rs. 1000.
Any disorderly behaviour of a person in the public or commission of a
criminal offence is bound, to some extent, affect the peace prevailing in the
locality and it may also affect law and order but the same need not affect
E
maintenance of public order. Under the definitions in the Act it is stated that
in the case of "Goonda" the acts prejudicial to public order are 'when he is
engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as
a goonda which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the
maintenance ofpublic order' . The question whether a man has only committed
a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause disturbance F
f· of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the
act upon the society; that a solitary assault on one individual can hardly be
said to disturb public peace or place public order injeopardy so as to bring
the case within the purview of the Act providing for preventive detention.
In the present case, the three alleged incidents to \Vhich. the
G
Commissioner of Police has referred to are thefts arising under Section 379
IPC and, therefore, there is only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is
'i
alleged to have robbed in a public place one Kumar. Therefore, there is no
; material on n:cord to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident
of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the H
; .446' i, 'lf!Jd I HUI ';SUPREME COURT :REPORTS•' "'I/ '1{2003] I S.C.R.
! A''r'commuitity in the locality or ·diSturb~generaLpeace.and tranquillity or~crezte
rrna .sense·rof alanncand irisecurity in the locality. Though ·in the .grounds' of
l" detention the detaining authority had stated that by . co;111mitting. this offence
l 'An public the detenu created a sense ofalarm, scare and a·feeling of insecurity
,, 'in the minds· of the public of the area and thereby acted.in a manner prejudicial
, , ,. to the m'aintenance ()f public order which.affected eve1Uempo ,of life ofithe
<-• B., ;com inunity, but; ctitation of these:words• in the order. of de!entionris1moi;e in
~.· · the natu're ()f,a,ritual· rather4han '.with.any significance ,to .the CQntent of; the
·,1 matter: Thus;:a ·solitary· instance ·Of robbery·as·mentioneddn the g.rounds of
)i •detention.is.not relevant for sustaining the order>Ofdetention ;for,the1pUqlOSe
11, of preventing the petitioner from··actirig dn 1a• manner;.~prejudicial• .to: .the
.1C maintenance·of pubJic:order.; This .ground..is :enoug~ 1to .quas~ the order. of
detention made by the respondents.
:1 1
We direct the release ofthe detenu ..forthwith;· if he is to required to be
; detained with respecHo any other matter arising under law ..,The·petition is
allowed accordingly. ,•
en
1•1 S:K.S.·l• 1. , :·1 •·.t, : ' ii j) 'I H ,Y;" :Petition allowed.
YI •. ~' j • j •'
I ,;'JI. jt·;·o •·-".1~ '··~·~ J.~; .ij·~ ~.,,
I
- -, ~~· ,.
',,
\,J 'I,·, i ·\ '.I , ·. ' ., \ ·,o ' , '.- . , ·~ '
; :1 · ) ,!. 1,., . If l ', • "
!.~ :' • ~. • . ' : .I ' • ! ' :1 I ' ~ I' J - .. ~ , .<'"I, '.
..... .. ·~ -f; '·
t t •.i'r' ,.;-. '
t ·,,' ( '·.,. . f • J'
I )
·.~.'i i...J1~1 'I •.~ . :r·. ~ · i•..__· L· ' ,.1 li ...
"
.·( l! .. ' •,'
, J
r~ri ..- : ":,t 1·_,1 f
~r. !' _...l ••·. n~ yl\ ,.·
'
i ,.. ,• I r'
!
1! . ,
~ :
" I ~' . "'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "preventive detention"Sign in to search