Every Breach Of Peace Does Not Lead To Public Disorder: Supreme Court Quashes Preventive Detention Under MPDA Act
The Supreme Court, while reiterating that every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder, has quashed an Order of preventive detention under the MPDA Act in an alleged bootlegging case.
The Court set aside the detention order confirmed by the State Government imposed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981 against the Appellant for alleged bootlegging activities. The Bench stated that the allegations against the Appellant were “as vague as it could be.”
The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan reiterated, “A Constitution Bench of this Court in unequivocal terms held that every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. It has been held that when a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible..”
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi represented the Appellant, while Advocate Siddharth Dharmadhikari appeared for the Respondent.
The District Magistrate had issued the detention Order relying on six cases registered under the MPDA Act, as well as statements from two unnamed witnesses. The detaining authority claimed that the Appellant’s bootlegging activities caused fear and terror among local residents, disrupting public order.
The Appellant challenged the detention Order, submitting that it was based on vague and unsupported allegations. He argued that none of the six registered cases led to his arrest and that the alleged witness statements did not demonstrate any public impact.
The Bombay High Court dismissed his Writ Petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the witness statements did not indicate any action by the Appellant in the presence of villagers that could create a perception of a threat to public order.
The Court referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1965), wherein the Apex Court explained, “Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order.”
The Bench noted that all the six cases against the Appellant were regarding the sale of illicit liquor. “Though six cases are registered, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to arrest the appellant even on a single occasion. It would have been a different matter, had the appellant been arrested, thereafter released on bail and then again the appellant continued with his activities. However, that is not the case here,” it further noted.
Consequently, the Court observed, “The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 20th August 2024 so also the order of detention dated 5th March 2024 passed by the detaining authority and the order of confirmation dated 8th May 2024 are quashed and set aside and the appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Arjun v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 968)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi; AOR Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh; Advocates Nishant Sharma and Ankur S. Savadikar
Respondent: Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse and Adarsh Dubey; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
