The Allahabad High Court has upheld the preventive detention of a man under the National Security Act, ruling that even a single criminal act can amount to a disturbance of public order when it triggers widespread communal tension and serious disruption, rather than a mere breach of law and order. The decision came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the detainee, Shoaib, challenging the detention order passed by the District Magistrate of Mau. The bench of Justices JJ Munir and Sanjiv Kumar dismissed the petition and sustained the detention.
The factual background of the case unfolds from an incident in the Ghosi area of Mau district, when Shoaib’s motorcycle allegedly collided with that of another person identified as Sukkhu. The collision led to a verbal altercation, after which Shoaib is said to have called his associates, one of whom allegedly assaulted Sukkhu with a knife, inflicting serious injuries to his neck and shoulder. The High Court noted that this assault did not remain an isolated event, but sparked a chain reaction — people gathered from the side of the detainee, a free fight ensued, stone-pelting began, and pandemonium broke out in the hospital where the injured victim was taken. The commotion reportedly caused other patients and attendants to flee, and medical services were severely disrupted.
As events spiralled, a large crowd — reportedly more than two hundred — blocked the Ghosi–Dohrighat road, shouted slogans, turned violent against police intervention, and damaged police vehicles. The rioting expanded beyond the immediate scene: shops, religious places, and other public property were attacked, social tension heightened, and members of the Hindu community were allegedly incited to violence in a neighbouring area. According to the High Court’s account, police personnel including a Circle Officer and Station House Officers sustained grievous injuries during the mayhem.
Shoaib’s counsel argued before the High Court that the original assault was a singular offence suitable for ordinary criminal prosecution, and that no grounds existed for preventive detention under the NSA — especially since no FIR connected him to leading a mob or orchestrating the wider violence. It was contended that the subsequent communal flare-up, if any, could not be pinned solely on him, and the incident should not be considered as amounting to “public order” disruption. Further, the petitioner argued that preventive detention was improper because he was already in custody and taken to the hospital while violence erupted.
Rejecting this argument, the Court held that the repercussions of the petitioner’s alleged act extended far beyond a simple case of law and order. The bench observed that the violence had thrown the “even tempo of life out of gear,” shutting down businesses, causing schools to close, instilling fear among parents, and preventing people from seeking essential services — a situation that, the Court found, amounted to a breakdown of public order. The Court explicitly rejected the narrow view that a single criminal act cannot vitiate public order, noting that the resultant widespread communal tension, property damage, disruption of medical services, and fear among the public were within the ambit of “public order” for purposes of the NSA.
In its reasoning, the High Court also referenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and gave it due deference. It observed that in preventive detention cases, judicial review is limited and does not entail second-guessing the executive’s assessment, unless the grounds are “glaringly absurd” or based on irrelevant considerations. The Court found that the detention order in this case was based on well-informed grounds, including confidential intelligence suggesting that the petitioner, while evading arrest, had reportedly sworn to “kill the witnesses” and “teach the Hindu community a lesson,” thereby indicating a continuing threat of communal violence.
On that basis, the bench upheld the detention order, dismissed the habeas corpus petition, and ruled that Shoaib’s detention under the NSA was valid and lawful. The Court’s judgment illustrates that, in its view, preventive detention under the NSA may be justified not only by repeated offences or antecedents, but also by a single act that has grave public consequences — in this case, communal violence, public property damage, and disruption of essential public services.
The decision underscores a broader judicial position: when a criminal act triggers large-scale public disorder — communal tension, disruption to civic life, fear among citizens, and breakdown of public services — courts may treat it as a matter of public order, warranting preventive detention even if the triggering offence may initially resemble a simple case of criminal assault.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.