Raghubar Dayal Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - he again threatened presiding officer, shri arun kumar pandey of dire consequences due to which, there was panic in the minds of officials and claimants as well as persons of public assembled there. again this created panic and alarm in the minds of the presiding officer of the court and persons of the public and had repercussions on the working of that court as well as other courts functioning in different areas. 46, armed with deadly weapons and issued a general threat to all present that those who would give statement or lodge report would meet dire consequences due to which there was a panic and scare amongst the presiding officer, officials as well as to claimants and other persons present there, with wide repercussions.v.k. agrawal, j.1. this is a petition under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india, whereby the detention of the petitioner's son shri subodh sharma under section 3(2) national security act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been challenged, with the prayer that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production and release of the detenu shri subodh sharma, may be issued and the order of the district magistrate, bhopal (annex. r-3) (mentioned to be annexure-1 in the petition, but which in fact is 'annexure r-3'filed with the return of the respondents), directing the detention, as aforesaid, may be quashed.2. the impugned-order annex. r-3 dated 4th march, 1995 has been passed by respondent no. 2, district magistrate, bhopal under section 3(2) of the act for detention of detenu shri subodh sharma on the grounds enumerated in 'annexure-2'. the said grounds briefly are as below :-(i) on 8-12-1992 during communal roits at bhopal the detenu with an intention to kill had assaulted and caused grievous injuries to chand khan, resulting in communal tension;(ii) on 22-3-1994 in the court of dy. claims commissioner; bhopal gas victims, ward no. 47, the detenu alongwith others had filthily abused one brajendra pandey and other officials of the said court;(iii) on 13-5-1994 in the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victim, ward no. 47, the detenu asked amount of commission from one of the claimants baliram and on baliram refusing to pay the commission amount to the deternu, the detenu subodh sharma stabbed baliram with knife;(iv) on 25-10-1994, the detenu alongwith his father went to the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victim, ward no. 46, bhopal and threatened to kill the presiding officer of that court, shri arun pandey;(v) on 14-12-1994, the detenu alongwith others had pressuring dy. commissioner, shri arun kumar pandey by shouting that the cheque of one kailash be immediately issued;(vi) on 2-2-1995 the detenu threatened the presiding officer, shri r. b. kumar, of the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 46, asking him to act according to the wishes of the detenu;(vii) on 14-2-1995, the detenu waylaid shri r. b. kumar, presiding officer of the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 46 and threatened him with dire consequences in case he lodged report against the detenu;(viii) on 22-2-1995 in the court campus of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 46, bhopal the detenu armed with sword, knife, etc., shouted that he would kill the person, who has lodged report against him;(ix) on 3-3-1995, the detenu armed with deadly weapons, sword, knife, etc. shouted and announced that no muslims should recite 'namaz' outside the mosque otherwise the detenu would kill them, resulting in communal tension in the area;3. as per return of the respondents on receiving annexure r-l report dt. 4-3-1995 of s. p. with documents referred there in; annexure r-3 which is the order of detention dt. 4-3-1995 was passed by respondent no. 2. annexure r-2 are the grounds of detention dt. 4-3-1995 which were served on the detenue on 6-3-1995. the detenue was also informed vide annexure r-2 that he can make representation to the home department and also to advisory board. the respondent no. 2 reported on 7-3-1995 to state government the detention of the detenue vide annexure r-4, as per section 3(4) of the act and the state government under section 3(4) of the act approved the order of detention-vide annexure r-5 dt. 14-3-1995. the respondent no. 1 reported the fact of detention to central government under section 3(5) of the act vide annexure r-6 dt. 14-3-1995. the detenue submitted his representation! dt. 27-3-1995 which was forwarded to the advisory board on 31-3-1995 vide letter annexure r-7. original file of the detenue was forwarded to the advisory board on 15-3-1995. advisory board vide report annerure r-8 dt. 4-4-1995 found the detention justified. after report of the advisory board was received the state government with the opinion of the advisory board and authorised detention of detenue upto 3-3-l996 vide annexure r-9 and the same was also communicated to detenue.4. thus all the necessary steps for effecting detention as per the act have been duly complied with. there was also no challenge in the above regard during arguments.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that so far as grounds (i) & (iii) enumerated above are concerned, the detenue has been acquitted with reference to trials in relation to the allegations contained therein and that there has been no prosecution so far as ground no. (ix) is concerned. it has also been urged that so far as other grounds are concerned, they' do not justify detention under section 3(2) of the act. it has also been urged in this connection that the' actions of the detenu do not disclose that they were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the grounds enumerated only disclosed that the situation of law and order might have been affected by the alleged actions of the detenu. it was urged that the offences as alleged in the grounds are not serious and, therefore, his detention on the basis thereof, cannot be sustained. the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the supreme court reported in arun ghosh v. state of west bengal, 1970 cri lj1136 : air 1970 sc1228 and ram manohar lohia v. state of bihar, 1966 cri lj 608 : air 1966 sc 740.6. it has, therefore, to be considered whether the acts of the detenu enumerated as the grounds of his detention were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or were acts affecting only law and order 7. the difference between acts which could be subversive of public order as distinguished from law and order has been pointed out in the case of arun ghosh v. state of west bengal, air 1970 sc 1228 : 1970 cri lj. 1136 as below :-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 transquillity. 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.the question 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.8. in ram manohar v. state of bihar, air 1966 sc 740 : 1966 cri lj 608, it has been laid down as below :-the contravention of law always affects order but before it 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 disturbance 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 circum stances', at page 758; of air.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 stated 'law and order' also comprehends discorders 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.9. now we will advert to the facts and grounds asserted in the instance case, ground no. (1) state a case wherein the detenu shri subodh sharma had assaulted one chand khan with an intention to cause his death and having caused him grievous injuries in the incident on 8-12-1992. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the detenu already stands acquitted of the said ground. it is also an incident relating to december, 1992, and, therefore, will not be treated as relevant for the purposes of detention in the year 1995 as being state.10. so far as ground no. (iii) is concerned, the same relates to an incident dated 13-5-1994 and relates to the demand of commission amount from one of the claimants who had come to the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 47 and the claimant baliram having refused to pay the commission to the detenu shri subodh sharma, he having to the said baliram. the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the detenu has been acquitted of the said charge after trial.11. as regards ground no. (ix) is concerned, it has been alleged that on 3-3-1995, the detenu alongwith other persons accompanying him, went near the mosque at p. s. bajaria and threatened that nobody should recite 'namaz' outside the mosque, otherwise they would be murdered, upon which, there was communal tension atmosphere of panic prevailed in the area and in the minds of persons belonging to muslim community.12. the learned counsel for the petitioner has, in his arguments, alleged that so far as ground no. (ix) is concerned, no offence has been registered against the accused / applicant, which itself is indicative of the fact that the allegation is baseless.13. now regarding ground no. (ii), it relates to an incident dated 22-3-1994, which took place in the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 47 wherein the report had been lodged against detenu shri subodh sharma that he had shouted and abused filthily the officials of that court including shri brajendra pandey. on account of such behaviour, panic was created amongst the officials and claimants, who had come there with regard to their cases pending in that court.14. again, so far as ground no. (iv) is concerned,, on 25-10-1994, detenu subodh sharma accompanied by his father, went to the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 46 and shouted at the presiding officer, shri arun pandey that he would be murdered and hurled a shoe at the presiding officer. on account of the 'said misdeed of the detenu, subodh sharma, there was panic amongst the presiding officer, the officials, the claimants and the people of the public, who had come there and which also resulted in obstruction of the work of that court. as per the report of the s. p., bhopal (annexure r-l), when the report of the incident reached other courts, the presiding officers and claimants felt panicky. presiding officer shri arun pandey had lodged the report of the incident at p. s. bazaria, which is registered as crime no. 182/94 for offences punishable under sections 294/ 506/ 353 / 332&186 of the i.p.c.15. the next incident as narrated in ground no. (v) is dated 14-12-1994 wherein, it is alleged that the detenu had gone to 'the court of deputy claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, bhopal, ward no. 46 accompanied by other persons and threatened the presiding officer, shri arun kumar pendey and pressurised him regarding issuance of cheques immediately to one kailash, who was one of the friends of the detenu. he again threatened presiding officer, shri arun kumar pandey of dire consequences due to which, there was panic in the minds of officials and claimants as well as persons of public assembled there. as detailed in the report of the s.p., bhopal submitted to district magistrate, bhopal, the f.i.r. of the incident was registered as crime no. 216/94 for offences under sections 506/486, i.p.c., the copy of which is annexed therewith.16. regarding ground no. (vi), the incident relates to 2-2-1995 wherein the detenu subodh sharma went to the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 46 and misbehaved with the presiding officer, shri r. b. kumar, threatened him and warned him to act according to the wishes of the detenue, otherwise, the detenu would not permit the work of the court to proceed. he also threatened him with dire consequences outside the court. again this created panic and alarm in the minds of the presiding officer of the court and persons of the public and had repercussions on the working of that court as well as other courts functioning in different areas. presiding officer, shri r. b. kumar lodged the report of the incident at p. s. bajaria, which was registered as crime no. 51 of 1995 under sections 146/506, i.p.c. the f.i.r. of which is annexed.17. so far as ground no. (vii) is concerned, it relates'to an incident dated 14-2-1995 wherein the detenu shri subodh sharma waylaid shri r. b. kumar, the presiding officer of the court of dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, bhopal, ward no. 46 and threatened him with dire consequences. this created an atmosphere of panic in the minds of persons present and in the mind of the presiding officer, shri r. b. kumar, who lodged the report at p. s. bajaria, bhopal vide crime no. 42/ 1995 for offences punishable under sections 341 & 506 of the indian penal code, copy of the f.i.r. has been filed alongwith the petition.18. the eighth ground relates to an incident dated 22-2-1995 wherein the detenu had gone to the court of the dy. claims commissioner, bhopal gas victims, ward no. 46, armed with deadly weapons and issued a general threat to all present that those who would give statement or lodge report would meet dire consequences due to which there was a panic and scare amongst the presiding officer, officials as well as to claimants and other persons present there, with wide repercussions.19. it may be sen from the above that from march, 1994 to february, 1995, i.e., for a period of ii months, the detenu shri subodh sharma had created an atmosphere of panic by extending threats to the presiding officers of the courts of deputy claims commissioner and threatening them with dire consequences. the presiding officers of the said courts were shri arun kumar pandey and shri r. b. kumar. the detenue had not only orally threatened the presiding officers in the court premises, but, in fact, alleged to have hurled shoes at the presiding officer, shri arun kumar pandey, as would appear from the return of the respondents and the relevant f.i.r.. he also waylaid shri r. b. kumar, the presiding officer on the way and threatened him with dire consequences. there are as many as six different incidents alleged in the grounds regarding such actions, as detailed in the return of the respondents and detailed in the report (annexure r-l) dated 4-3-1995 of the s. p. made to district magistrate, which is based on the various reports lodged with the police, copies whereof are annexed with the return of the respondents. it would appear therefrom that the detenu sometimes accompanied by others had created an atmosphere of panic in the courts of dy. claims commissioners by threatening the presiding officers and uttering filthy abuses and desiring that the work should be done as per his wishes and also waylaying the presiding officer, shri r. b. kumar and threatening him and also having hurled shoes in the court.20. in this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the offences registered against the detenue are of minor nature and cannot be termed as disturbing the public order.21. it may be noted in this reference that the actions, as-above, of the detenu were detrimental to the functioning of the claims courts of dy. claims commiss'ioner. it would also appear that due to the said incidents, not only the presiding officers, but the officials working in the said courts, claimants and other members of the public must have got affected and as a consequence panicky atmosphere in the locality must have been created, as has been alleged on behalf of the respondents. these persistent actions on the part of the detenu must have grave repercussions and must have created a feeling of alarm in large sections of society, where such incidents took place. the actions, as-above, were also dertimental to the prestige of such courts established under law and. must have lowered their dignity in the eye of the general public.22. the learned counsel for the petitioner had also urged that false complaints have been lodged against the detenu because his father, the petitioner, being a journalist was exposing the corruption and illegal acts of the gas tribunals and, therefore, false cases were registered against his son, the detenu, shri subodh kumar. it may be noted that none of the complaints appear to have been lodged or registered against the petitioner himself. had the petitioner, who is a journalist raised a grievance against the working of the court of dy. claims commissioner and had the complaints were to be falsely lodged, they would have been mainly directed against the petitioner, rather than against the detenu. moreover, though the documents in support of the above contention of the petitioner has not been filed alongwith the petition, one such report dated 15-12-1994 is filed as'annexure 4' with the reply submitted to the government by the petitioner. the above reply and 'annexure-4' are in the original record of the case. it may be pointed out that the said 'annexure-4' is mostly against shri arun kumar pandey, while the reports of shri arun kumar pandey are for a. period prior to 15-12-1994 and thereafter the reports are by shri r. b. kumar regarding whom there is no substantial allegation in 'annexure-4'. therefore, there appears to be no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that false reports against the detenu were lodged because the petitioner sent the complaint dated 15-12-1994. it is also not believable that merely on account of such a complaint as 'annexure-4', false reports would have been lodged with the police by the presiding officers, shri arun kumar pandey and shri r. b. kumar.23. therefore, it would be clear that the persistent actions in and outside the court premises as mentioned in the grounds, had the effect of undermining the dignity of the institution of not only the concerned claims tribunals, but also other similar claims tribunals, which are established under law, performing quasi-judicial functions. the impact of such repeated incidents would be widespread and affected, not only the presiding officers & officials, who were threatened, but had the demoralising effect on the general functioning of such claims courts and had thus affected a large section of the public. such constant and repeated hinderances in the functioning of the public institutions, and threats openly extended to public officers inside and outside the court, cannot be treated as merely individual acts and necessarily have large repercussions affecting the large section of public.24. therefore, the cumulative effect of persistent actions as mentioned in the grounds (ii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) & (viii) spreading over for a period of about one year, as mentioned earlier, in our opinion, would not only amount to being prejudicial to law and order, but also amounted to have caused ripples in the general transquility and were thus prejudicial to public order. in the facts and circumstances, the subjective satisfaction of the respondent no. 2, leading to detention order according to us, was justified. therefore, in our considered opinion, the subjective satisfaction that the actions of the detenu were prejudicial to public order and consequently the order of detention under section 3(2) of the act does not call for any interference, by way of this writ petition and the order does not deserve to be quashed.25. accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.