Not Every Disruption Of Public Order Is Threat To Security Of State, Only Grave Disruptions Are Prejudicial To State's Security: J&K High Court

Drawing a significant distinction between acts prejudicial to public order and those affecting the security of the state a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

“.. Every act which is prejudicial to the security of the state would qualify to be an act prejudicial to the public order but reverse is not true. It is only the acts prejudicial to the public order which are of grave nature that would qualify to be termed as acts prejudicial to the security of the state”.

Justice Dhar made these observations while hearing a case involving petitioner Kapil Sharma who challenged an order which placed him under preventive detention by the District Magistrate of Jammu.

The petitioner contended that the detention order lacked proper evaluation and alleged that the grounds of detention were concocted and motivated. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that he was not provided with the complete material forming the basis of the detention order, depriving him of the opportunity to make an effective representation.

The respondents, however, countered these arguments by asserting that all legal safeguards were followed, and the detention order was valid and lawful. They portrayed the petitioner as a habitual criminal involved in numerous FIRs, justifying the necessity of preventive detention.

Justice Dhar, after hearing arguments from both sides and examining the detention record, delved into the crux of the matter. He emphasized the crucial distinction between acts prejudicial to public order and those affecting the security of the state, citing legal precedents to support his analysis.

The court observed that while every act prejudicial to the security of the state qualifies as prejudicial to public order, the reverse is not true. Acts prejudicial to public order, particularly of a grave nature, may qualify as threats to the security of the state, the bench underscored.

Terming the expressions “security of the state” and “public order” as quite distinct from each other, the court explained that if contravention of law affects the community or public at large, it amounts to disturbance of public order whereas if the disturbance of public order is of grave nature which affects the security of the state, then the same constitutes an act that would affect the security of the state.

“Thus, every act which is prejudicial to the security of the state would qualify to be an act prejudicial to the public order but reverse is not true”, the bench remarked.

Upon scrutinizing the grounds of detention, Justice Dhar noted the interchangeable use of terms like "security of the state," "public order," and "law and order" by the detaining authority. This lack of clarity led the court to conclude that the detention order was unsustainable in law due to the detaining authority's failure to specify the nature of the alleged acts.

In light of these observations, the petition was allowed, and the impugned detention order was set aside. The respondents were directed to release the petitioner, provided he was not required in any other case.

Case Title: Kapil Sharma Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 142

Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohsin Bhat, Advocate appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG represented the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment