n No 378 of 1969
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
D P Singh for the petitioner
G section Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
In this petition under article 32 of the Constitution submitted from jail the petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing his release from detention
We have already directed the release of the petitioner on 15 12 1969
Now we proceed to give our reasons in support of that order
The petitioner was ordered to be detained by the Commis sioner of Police Calcutta under section 32 of the Act IV of 1950 by his order dated July 15 361 1969
It is stated in that order that the petitioner was ordered to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
That order was confirmed by the State Government after the same was approved by the Advisory Board
From the grounds served on the petitioner it appears that his detention was ordered because of the three instances mentioned therein
It is said therein that on 28 2 1968 between 9 50 pm and 10 30 pm the petitioner armed with a knife along with some others also armed created disturbance on the Northern Avenue in the course of which he attacked the local people with knife as a result of which one Ajit Kumar Biswas sustained stab injuries
It is further alleged that during that incident the petitioner and his associates hurled sodawater bottles and brickbats towards the local people endangering their lives and safety and thereby they created
fear and frightfulness amongst the people of the locality and thus affected public peace and tranquillity of the locality
The second incident mentioned therein is that on 29 10 1968 at about 9 10 pm the petitioner being armed with bombs and accompanied by some other created disturbance on Raja Manindra Road in the course of which he and his associates hurled bombs used swords iron rods  and lathis against the local people endangering their lives and safety and thereby they created fear and frightfulness in the locality resulting in the disturbance of public peace and tranquillity of that locality
The last incident mentioned is that on 28 6 1969 at about 11 15 pm the petitioner and his associates armed with bombs created disturbance on Raja Manindra Road in the course of which they indiscriminately hurled bombs towards the local people endangering their lives and safety and thereby they affected _public peace and tranquillity of that locality
From the record it does not appear that the petitioner was prosecuted for any of the offences mentioned earlier
It is not known why he was not prosecuted
In the ordinary course if there is truth in the allegations made he should have been prosecuted and given an opportunity to defend himself
The allegations made against the petitioner do not amount to anything more than that he committed certain breaches of law
The freedom of the individual is of utmost importance in any civilized society
It is a human right
Under our Consti tution it is a guaranteed right
It can be deprived of only by due process of law
The power to detain is an exceptional power to be used under exceptional circumstances
It is wrong to 362 consider the same as the executive appears to have done in the present case that it is a convenient substitute for the ordinary process of law
The detention of the petitioner under the circumstances of this case appears to be a gross misuse of the power conferred under the 
The three incidents mentioned in the grounds are stray incidents spread over a period of one year and four months
These incidents cannot be said to be inter linked
They could not have prejudiced the maintenance of public order  nor can they be held to be subversive of public order 
They were at best prejudicial to  law and order
The distinction between the maintenance of public order  and maintenance of law and order  was brought out by this Court in Dr Ram Manohar Lohia v State of Bihar 
Therein this Court pointed out that main tenance of law and order is a conception much wider than the conception of maintenance public order 
The latter is the prevention of a disorder of grave nature
 Every act that affects law and order need not affect public order 
If it is otherwise every one who disturbs law and order however petty the offence committed by him may be can be detained under the Prevention Detention Act
This would be a total repudiation of of the rule of law and an affront to our Constitution
The lega position relating to the point in issue was again recently considered by this Court in Arun Ghosh vs State of West Bengal  Therein it was observed that public order  is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or ever a specified locality
Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do no disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity
It is the degree of disturbance and it effect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order
We are of the opinion that the grounds stated in support of the detention cannot amount to a disturbance of the maintenance of public order 
VPS 1  2 19701 3 SCR 288


Summary:
The petitioner along with others committed various offences on three occasions
On the first occasion he attacked the people of a locality with a knife and by hurling bottles at them
On the other two occasions he attacked the people of another locality by hurling bombs at them
He was detained under section 32 of the  with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
In a petition under article 32 for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus HELD  The incidents were not interlinked and could not have prejudiced the maintenance of public order
They were stray incidents spread over a period of one year and four months directed against individuals and did not disturb society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquillity and hence
the petitioner was entitled to be released
The power to detain is an exceptional power to be used in exceptional circumstances and cannot be used as a convenient substitute for the ordinary process of law
The acts complained of against the petitioner can at best be considered as prejudicial to law and order and not public order as required by the law relating to preventive detention
361 H 362 A C E F Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar  and Arun Ghosh vs State of West Bengal1970 3 SCR 288 followed