What is Public Order?

Well, by and large, 'public order' is a very broad term to define accurately. Many political pundits have tried to do so in the past, yet its meaning has changed with changing times, regions, and cultures across the globe.

Generally, people equate the term 'public order' with 'public peace and safety.'

In India, though, it is one of the justifications that the state government can use to impose restrictions on our otherwise sacrosanct fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and religion.

• For example, Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees everyone (citizens and foreigners) the freedom of conscience, and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.

According to the State List (List 2) of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution, the power to legislate on aspects of public order rests with the states.

• Internationally, the responsibility of maintaining global public order rests on the shoulders of the Security Council of the United Nations (UNSC).
• According to Chapter VII of the UN Charter (Concerning Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression), while responding to breaches of international public order, the UN can use the option of force if the need arises.

Past Instances that Discussed about Public Order in India

In the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1965), the Supreme Court commented on 'public order' while deciding on the issue of the state's power to use preventive detention against an individual. Here, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court interpreted that the government can justify its action on the grounds of public order if the community or the public at large has been affected by a particular action and not just a few individuals.

In 1970, the Supreme Court equated 'public order' with public tranquility in the case of Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti. 

In the couple of cases discussed above, we can observe that the Supreme Court tried to narrow down the definition of 'public order.'

However, in Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) case, the Supreme Court went on to broaden the extent of 'public order' by banning the publication of the novel Dharmakaarana, citing that the novel could hurt the sentiments of some communities.

Similarly, in 2017, the Supreme Court again sided with the legislature that banned the book Basava Vachana Deepthi for religious outrage among communities without giving a reasoned order.

In the case of Ban on Hijab in educational institutions (2022), the applicants have challenged the Karnataka Government's power to disallow certain actions to protect public order at large. Further, it dwells on the topic of the violation of fundamental rights of a community or an individual to maintain 'public order.'

In this case, the Court ended up with a split verdict, not satisfying either of the opposing parties.

• According to the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, 'public order' is one of the reasons for not allowing students to wear a headscarf in educational institutions, along with unity and integrity.

More recently, the Union government has issued the Central Media Accreditation Guidelines, 2022, which empowers government authorities to select journalists and grant them access to government offices based on arbitrary criteria such as 'public order, morality, and decency. '

Here, again, we can see a lack of a clear framework on the government's part, which might cause conflicts between the involved parties in the future.

Conclusion:

Now, after analyzing some of the famous cases that discussed the meaning and interpretation of the term 'public order', we can conclude that the fundamental or legal rights we have been awarded as individuals or communities come with responsible restrictions. One of the many such restrictions is "maintaining public order."

Yet, the varying judgments by Indian courts over the years have continued to widen the ambit of 'public order.' This has led to incidents where central as well as state agencies have used 'public order' as a ground to curb the citizen's right to free speech, right to protest, or even to justify the ban on internet services (e.g., during the farmers' protest of 2021 many parts of Northern India experienced shut down of internet).

Therefore, the judiciary and the government both need to look at the 'reasonable restrictions,' especially, the 'scope of public order,' with a narrower and more definite lens while using it as a justification to curb people's rights.