Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
Supreme Court of India · 7 September 1965 · 5 judges · 1966 AIR 740; 1966 SCR (1) 709
A detention order under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules made to prevent acts prejudicial to 'law and order', rather than 'public order', was outside the Rule, and the detenu was ordered to be released.
Facts
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, a member of the Lok Sabha, was arrested at Patna on the night of 9 to 10 August 1965 and detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Patna, made under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The order recited that detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to 'the public safety and the maintenance of law and order'. A Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 had been in force since October 1962, and a Presidential Order under Article 359(1) suspended the right to move any court to enforce Articles 21 and 22 for persons deprived of those rights under the Defence of India Act or rules made under it. Dr. Lohia petitioned under Article 32 for habeas corpus, arguing in person. The State objected that the Presidential Order barred the petition.
Questions before the Court
- Does the Presidential Order under Article 359(1) bar a petition under Article 32 claiming that the detention is not authorised by the Defence of India Act and Rules?
- Can a detention order made to prevent acts prejudicial to 'law and order' be justified under Rule 30(1)(b), which speaks of 'public order'?
- Is the order saved because it also mentions public safety, a ground within the Rule, or by the District Magistrate's affidavit and file note?
What the Court held
- The Presidential Order suspends the right to move the court only where a person is deprived of liberty under the Defence of India Act or Rules. A detenu who says his detention is not under the Act or Rules may be heard under Article 32, and the Court must examine that claim.
- 'Law and order' is not the same as 'public order'. Law and order is wider and covers disturbances of local or lesser gravity; public order requires that the community or public at large be affected. Rule 30(1)(b) does not permit detention merely to maintain law and order.
- The detention order is the only warrant for detention and must be in terms of the Rule. An order which on its face is outside the Rule cannot be supported by the detaining authority's affidavit or earlier note.
- Because the order joined a valid ground (public safety) with an invalid one, and it could not be known how far each influenced the authority's satisfaction, the order was bad as a whole. The petition was allowed and Dr. Lohia was set at liberty.
- Citing a wrong notification number for the delegation of power was a mere mistake that did not by itself vitiate the order.
Why it matters
The judgment draws the distinction between 'law and order', 'public order' and 'security of the State', explained by Hidayatullah, J. through three concentric circles. It holds that even during an emergency with a Presidential Order under Article 359(1), the Court will examine whether a detention is in fact authorised by the emergency law, and that a detention order must strictly follow the words of the rule under which it is made.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State. By using the expression "maintenance of law and order" the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of India Rules.”
“The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are.”
“If a man can be deprived of his liberty under a rule by the simple process of the making of a certain order, he can only be so deprived if the order is in terms of the rule. Strict compliance with the letter of the rule is the essence of the matter.”
“If any person says, as Dr. Lohia does, that he has been deprived of his personal liberty by an order not made under the Act or the Rules there is nothing in the President's Order under Art. 359(1) to deprive him of his right to move the Court under Art. 32.”
Provisions interpreted
- Rule 30(1)(b), Defence of India Rules, 1962
- Sections 3 and 40(2), Defence of India Act, 1962
- Article 359(1), Constitution
- Article 32, Constitution
- Articles 21 and 22, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 79 of 1965 (Original Jurisdiction)
- Decided
- 7 September 1965
- Bench
- Sarkar, A.K., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R., Bachawat, R.S.
- Opinions
- Majority 4:1. Separate concurring judgments by Sarkar, J., Hidayatullah, J. (for himself and Bachawat, J.) and Mudholkar, J.; Raghubar Dayal, J. dissented and would have dismissed the petition. The order allowed the petition in view of the majority opinion.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.