STATE OF U.P. versus HARI SHANKAR TEWARI

STATE OF U.P. versus HARI SHANKAR TEWARI

The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and potentiality of the act to disturb the community or public tranquillity. The High Court was correct in quashing the detention as the acts attributed to the respondent did not meet the threshold of disturbing public order, but at most implicated law and order.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P.; Respondent: Hari Shankar Tewari
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 February 1987
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Special Leave / Supreme Court Decision After High Court Quashed Detention Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Public Order Vs Law and Order, National Security Act, 1980
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Public Order Vs Law and Order National Security Act, 1980

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P.

Appellant

Hari Shankar Tewari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Special Leave / Supreme Court Decision After High Court Quashed Detention Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 related to 'public order' or merely 'law and order'
  2. 2 What is the distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order' for the purpose of preventive detention

Ratio Decidendi

The distinction between law and order and public order is one of degree and potentiality of the act to disturb the community or public tranquillity. The High Court was correct in quashing the detention as the acts attributed to the respondent did not meet the threshold of disturbing public order, but at most implicated law and order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Detention order remains quashed as per High Court decision