'Single Act Triggering Communal Tension Vitiates Public Order': Allahabad High Court Upholds NSA Detention

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus dismissed the habeas corpus writ petition filed by one Shoaib who had moved the HC challenging his detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Mau.

The Court observed that while the alleged initial assault attributed to him might appear to be a simple case of violation of law and order, its direct fallout was widespread riot, damage to public property and communal tension and thus, the matter very well fell within the ambit of 'public order'.

Case in brief

Briefly put, an incident occurred on November 15, 2024, in the Ghosi area of UP's Mau District wherein allegedly a minor altercation occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner (Shoaib) hit the motorcycle of the victim (Sukkhu).

Following a verbal spat, Shoaib (petitioner/detenue) allegedly called his associates, one of whom repeatedly assaulted Sukkhu with a knife and inflicted serious injuries to his neck and shoulder.

The Court noted that the situation did not end with the assault. As the victim was taken to a Community Health Centre, a multitude of people gathered from the side of the detenue which led to a belligerent free fight and stone pelting.

The High Court observed that this caused "pandemonium in the hospital" and thus, the patients and attendants were struck by such fear that they had to flee the premises and now, the patients are not coming over to the hospital out of fear.

Allegedly, the mob also damaged the hospital's doors, windows and other valuable equipment and this led to the obstruction of medical services.

The violence further escalated when a crowd of over 200 people blocked the Ghosi-Dohrighat main road and when police attempted to intervene, the crowd purportedly turned belligerent, shouted slogans and damaged police vehicles.

The crowd also damaged the nearby shops, religious places and public property by hurling brick bats, all leading to vitiation of public order.

As per the allegations, several police personnel, including the Circle Officer and Station House Officers, sustained grievous injuries in the mayhem.

In fact, the court noted, the petitioner's act, which led to precipitation of all these events, also caused members of the Hindu community to be enraged, leading them to riot at Bharauti where members of the police force received injuries, besides the vehicles being damaged.

Challenging his detention, the petitioner moved the HC claiming that he had nothing to do with anything adversely affecting public order and there was no allegation in the said FIR about Shoaib leading a mob to do violence of any kind.

It was also argued that the incident was a solitary case of a simple breach of law and order and he was already in custody and taken to the hospital when mob violence occurred and that he could have been tried under the ordinary penal laws and thus, there was no need to invoke NSA.

High Court's observations

Rejecting this submission, the High Court observed that the impact of the petitioner's act led to the widespread vitiation of public order, forcing shopkeepers to pull down shutters and schools to close due to fear.

The Court noted that the parents and guardians of children studying in local schools were "very scared to send them forth".

Thereafter, the Court referred to Supreme Court's judgment in Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State ofBihar 1965, to note that an act affecting the community or the public at large transcends a mere breach of law.

The Court also took note of the 'potentiality' of the act to cause further disturbance. The division bench further noted that the grounds of detention revealed confidential information that the petitioner, while fleeing justice, had sworn to kill the witnesses and "teach members of the Hindu community a lesson”.

The Bench noted that the intelligence reports indicated a determined intention by the petitioner to indulge in similar acts, making the danger of violation of public order a 'potent possibility'.

"It is true that the act attributed to the petitioner and his companions of assaulting Sukkhu with a knife, over a small incident of bumping of their motorcycles, might be a simple case of violation of law and order for which the petitioner could be charge-sheeted, charged and tried in accordance with law and punished, but it is the direct fall out of the said action that widespread riot and communal tension between the two communities was precipitated that resulted in vitiation of public order", the bench remarked.

The High Court also clarified that there is a limited scope of judicial review in preventive detention cases. It stated that the Court does not sit in judgment over the correctness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority unless it is based on irrelevant considerations or is 'glaringly absurd'.

Against this backdrop, the Bench found the grounds to be well informed and concluded that the detention order was based on on sound reasoning and due application of mind regarding the necessity to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Consequently, the habeas corpus plea was dismissed and the detention order was upheld.