Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a twelve-month preventive detention order under the Maharashtra MPDA Act passed against an alleged bootlegger, holding that six excise cases of illicit liquor manufacture, in none of which he was arrested, and two vague, identical statements of unnamed witnesses showed at most a law and order problem and not a threat to public order.
Issues
- Whether the activities relied on by the detaining authority (six Prohibition Act cases and two unnamed witness statements) were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order so as to justify preventive detention.
- Whether the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was substantiated.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(2), Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers ... Act, 1981 (MPDA Act)The District Magistrate detained the appellant under this provision to prevent bootlegging; the Court held the material did not substantiate the satisfaction that his activities were prejudicial to public order, and quashed the detention and confirmation orders. (¶¶ 4.1, 18, 20)
- Section 65, Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949The six cases forming the basis of detention were registered under clauses of Section 65 for illicit manufacture of handmade liquor; the Court treated them as matters for the ordinary law, noting no arrest was made in any of them. (¶¶ 7, 9, 16)
Held
- Every breach of the peace is not a disturbance of public order; following Ram Manohar Lohia and Ameena Begum, an act affects public order only when it disturbs the even tempo of life of the community or the public at large, and where a person can be dealt with under the ordinary law and order powers, the harsh measure of preventive detention is not permissible. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Whether conduct threatens public order or is a law and order matter depends on the facts of each case and the degree of its impact on the public; a private act within a house differs from repeated conduct in a public place that creates terror among people at large, even without a physical attack. (¶ 15)
- Six cases of selling illicit liquor in which the excise authority never found it necessary to arrest the appellant did not show a threat to public order; the position might differ if he had been arrested, bailed and had continued the activity. (¶¶ 9, 16)
- The stereotyped, vague statements of two unnamed witnesses, even taken at face value, disclosed threats confined to the witnesses individually and not made before villagers, so they did not show a perception of danger to public order. (¶¶ 10, 11, 17)
- The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the appellant's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was not substantiated, and the appeal succeeded on this short ground without deciding the other contentions. (¶¶ 6, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment of 20.08.2024, detention order of 05.03.2024 and confirmation order of 08.05.2024 quashed; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.