Single Act "Disrupting Even Tempo Of Life" A Violation Of Public Order And Sufficient To Invoke NSA: Allahabad High Court
The High Court held that even a solitary incident may constitute a disturbance of public order when its consequences extend to the community at large and disrupt the normal tenor of life, thereby justifying the invocation of the National Security Act against the accused.
The Allahabad High Court has upheld a preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, observing that a single act can constitute an offence prejudicial to public order if its repercussions disturb the even tempo of life in the locality.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging the petitioner’s detention following a violent incident that resulted in mob unrest and widespread disorder.
A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar while adjudicating the matter, observed that the point that was sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner that, after all, it was a single act which constituted an offence, at the most a violation of law and order, is without substance, while holding that “…a single act has consistently been held to be sufficient to constitute violation of public order, if it impacts the even tempo of life to that extent in the circumstances that it is committed”.
Advocate Mohd Naushad appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Manish Pandey and the Additional Government Advocate represented the respondents.
Background
The detention order was passed after the petitioner was accused of assaulting a person with a knife over a minor altercation concerning a motorcycle collision, leading to grievous injuries. This incident triggered mob clashes between two groups, reportedly associated with different communities.
According to the grounds of detention, large crowds gathered at the hospital where the injured were admitted, resulting in violence, panic among patients, damage to public property, and disruption of medical services.
Subsequently, crowds blocked a major public road, damaged police vehicles, caused injuries to police personnel, forced the closure of shops, and prevented school children and patients from attending daily activities, causing widespread fear in the locality.
Court’s Observation
The Allahabad High Court, upon hearing the matter, analysed whether the acts attributed to the petitioner constituted a threat to public order, distinguishing them from mere law and order breaches. Referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, the Bench reiterated that disturbances affecting the community at large fall within the domain of public order, unlike isolated offences confined to individual disputes.
It noted that the petitioner’s act precipitated communal tension and extensive rioting, leading to “vitiation of the public order” as evidenced by hospital disruptions, police injuries, damage to public and private property, and fear preventing residents from leaving their homes.
The Court cited Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal to emphasise that the impact of the act on society determines whether public order is affected, particularly when the repercussions threaten communal harmony and endanger public safety.
The Bench also relied on State of U.P. v. Sanjai Pratap Gupta (Pappu), holding that “it is not the number of acts that matters” but their effect on public life, acknowledging that even a single incident may justify preventive detention if escalating tensions are foreseeable.
Further, the Court noted intelligence inputs suggesting the petitioner was planning retaliatory violence and targeting witnesses, establishing a real possibility of recurrence that warranted preventive action.
Assessing procedural compliance, the Court recorded that the statutory timelines under Sections 3(4), 3(5), 8, 10 and 11 of the NSA were duly adhered to, including the forwarding of the case to the Advisory Board and prompt consideration of the petitioner’s representation at all levels.
The Bench held that the detention authority had applied its mind to relevant material and reached a valid subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of detention to prevent future acts prejudicial to public order.
Conclusion
Holding that the petitioner’s conduct and subsequent communal fallout had “thrown the even tempo of life out of gear,” the Court ruled that the detention order was justified to protect public order. The habeas corpus petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Shoaib v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:204596-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Mohd Naushad, Syed Irfan Ali
Respondents: Advocate Manish Pandey, Government Advocate