When a person is preventively detained Arts. 21 & 22 are attracted and not Art. 19. Hence, to tear observations made in Madhu Limaye case out of context would be fraught with danger when it comes to liberty of person under Art. 21. Hence, contention that liberal meaning must be given to the expression “public order” in this context is wholly inapposite and incorrect. Preventive detention laws to be interpreted in light of Arts. 21 & 22 and not Art. 19. Hence, “maintenance of public order” and “public order” in the context of preventive detention laws has to be interpreted in light of Arts. 21 & 22. Hence, ruling in Madhu Limaye, (1970) 3 SCC 746 that liberal meaning must be given to “public order”, held, is not applicable in interpreting “public order” in the context of preventive detention laws. Madhu Limaye case dealt with scope of expression “in the interests of public order” occurring in Arts. 19(2) to 19(4).
[Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 415]
Itís difficult to find experienced people about this topic, however, you seem like you know what youíre talking about! Thanks
That’s a great point