Promotees Allowed to Challenge Provisional Seniority List in Dispute Between Direct Recruitment and Promotion: Kerala High Court Frivolous Defenses Cannot Justify Leave to Defend Under Order XXXVII CPC Delhi High Court Candidates Merely Enrolled in Final Year B.V.Sc. Program Ineligible for Veterinary Officer Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court Manufacturing or Sale of Garments Does Not Attract Copyright Protection; Procedural Violations Under Trade Marks Act Renders Prosecution Unsustainable: P&H High Court Ownership Alone Is Not Sufficient to Maintain Eviction Suit; Plaintiff Must Qualify as a Lessor Under Lease Agreement: Calcutta High Court Findings Based on Evidence Cannot Be Interfered With in a Second Appeal Without Substantial Question of Law: AP High Court Chain of Circumstances Broken: Inferences Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Kerala High Court Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court Encroachment on a Common Lane Gives Rise to Recurring Cause of Action: Madras High Court Holds Limitation Act Inapplicable to Pathway Disputes Reproductive Autonomy Includes the Right to Abort Without Spousal Consent: P&H High Court Access to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 is Not an Absolute Bar Against MSEFC Awards: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions on Writ Jurisdiction to Larger Bench Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted for Title and Mortgage Disputes Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court Principle of Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Supreme Court Panchayat Law | Mandatory Compliance With Section 34 And Rule 3 Is Non-Negotiable In Resignation Cases: Bombay High Court Quashes Resignation Of Upa-Sarpanch Recovery of Bullet Fired from Accused’s Weapon Crucial: PH High Court Reaffirms Conviction in Murder Case Injured Witness Evidence Carries Built-in Reliability Unless Contradicted Significantly: Kerala High Court Partly Allows Appeal in Murder Case Civil Dispute with Criminal Elements Cannot Be Quashed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka High Court Issuance of Summons Under Section 91 CrPC During Preliminary Verification is Without Jurisdiction: High Court of J&K and Ladakh Article 21 Prevails Over NDPS Act’s Section 37 Restrictions in Cases of Prolonged Incarceration: Delhi High Court Once a Property is Waqf, It Remains Waqf Perpetually: Calcutta High Court Affirms No Secular Ownership Can Derive from Waqf Properties Surveillance Without Opportunity to Object Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21: Allahabad High Court Quashes Class-B History Sheets Mandatory Provisions of Order XXI CPC Were Violated, Rendering the Auction Sale Illegal: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Judgment Clarifies Distinction Between "Law and Order" and "Public Order"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has provided crucial insights into the distinction between the concepts of "law and order" and "public order." The verdict, delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra on August 16, 2023, carries far-reaching implications for cases involving the maintenance of public order and individual rights.

The judgment stemmed from an appeal that challenged the detention of an individual under the Prohibition Act on the grounds of prejudicing public order. The court delved into a series of precedents to elaborate on the fine line between the two terms.

"The true distinction between the areas of 'public order' and 'law and order' lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society," the bench quoted, emphasizing the paramount importance of assessing the impact on the community.

The court cited several landmark cases to illustrate the nuanced boundary between these terms. In one such case, it was highlighted that while every breach of law might lead to some disorder, it's not all infractions that necessarily result in public disorder.

The ruling reiterated that while the nature of an act might not change, its potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the community's life determines whether it affects public order. It emphasized that in determining whether an act affects public order, the "potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community" is a key consideration.

Additionally, the court highlighted that the "potentiality of the act has to be examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, posterior and anterior for the offences" and that a mere registration of cases against an individual, such as a bootlegger, might not necessarily indicate a prejudicial impact on public order.

This landmark judgment has implications for cases across the legal spectrum, particularly those involving the preventive detention of individuals under various laws. The court's meticulous analysis of past decisions and its insights into the finer nuances of the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" offer clearer guidelines for future cases, ensuring a more consistent application of legal principles.

Date of Decision: August 16, 2023

PESALA NOOKARAJU vs THE GOVERNMENT OF    ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/16-Aug-2023_PESALA_Vs_GOVT_ANDHRA_PARDESH.pdf"]              

Similar News