disturbance in the public order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VERDICTUM.IN H.C.P(MD)Nos.1710 & 1206 of 2022 

35. A careful reading of the ground case shows that this incident did not happen in a public place. Even in the petition filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri seeking for the remand of the detenu, it is sufficiently clear that the incident had taken place inside a closed room. If such an incident had really taken place, it defies reason as to how it could have caused a disturbance in the public order. To constitute a disturbance to the public order, the incident must have the propensity of affecting the even tempo of life and public tranquillity being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This Court fails to understand as to how an incident which took place within four walls can have this propensity. There is absolutely no material to show that the reported incident in this case had such a great potential so as to disturb _______________ Page No.39 of 56 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis VERDICTUM.IN H.C.P(MD)Nos.1710 & 1206 of 2022 the even tempo of life in the locality or disturb the general peace and tranquillity or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. 36. Even though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor impressed upon this Court to take note of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. C.Anita reported in (2004) 7 SCC 467 and Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in (2012) 4 SCC 699, on carefully going through these judgments, it is seen that an act by itself, howsoever grave it is, cannot assume the character of affecting the public order unless it has the potentiality of impacting the society at large. It is true that this Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the detaining authority. However, the materials placed before this Court must prima facie satisfy that the act committed by the detenu amounted to affecting the public order and the said test has not been satisfied in the present case.