{"id":167708,"date":"1979-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979"},"modified":"2016-11-01T04:26:53","modified_gmt":"2016-10-31T22:56:53","slug":"g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979","title":{"rendered":"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 494, \t\t 1980 SCR (1)1104<\/div>\n
Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nG. M. SHAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/10\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  494\t\t  1980 SCR  (1)1104\n 1980 SCC  (1) 132\n\n\nACT:\n     Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 Sections 8(2)\nand 8(3)-Scope of-\"Law and Order,\" \"Public Order,\" \"Security\nof the State\"- Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The petitioner's  son (the\t detenu) was  detained under\nsection 8(2)  of the  Jammu and\t Kashmir Public\t Safety Act,\n1978 by\t an order  of  the  District  Magistrate,  Anantnag,\nSections 8(1)(a)(1)  and 8(2)2\tof the\tAct state  that\t the\nGovernment or the District Magistrate may, if satisfied with\nrespect to  any person\tthat with  a view  to preventing him\nfrom acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the\nState or  the maintenance of the public order, make an order\ndirecting that such person be detained.\n     The detenu was informed that the order of detention had\nbeen passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any\nmanner prejudicial to \"the maintenance of public order\". The\ngrounds of  detention amongst  others stated that the detenu\nhad (i) indulged in subversive activities (ii) organised the\nburning of  religious places  to create\t chaos in  the State\n(iii) disturbed the public order (iv) tried to elicit public\nopinion in  favour of  a person\t sentenced to death and that\nhis remaining at large was prejudicial to the maintenance of\npublic order and also the \"security of the State\".\n     The petitioner  challenged the  grounds of detention as\nvague.\n     Allowing  the   petition  under   Article\t32   of\t the\nConstitution  and   directing  the  release  of\t the  detenu\nforthwith.\n^\n     HELD: An  attempt on  the part of any citizen to elicit\npublic opinion\tin favour of a person who has been sentenced\nto death  and  to  save\t him  from  the\t gallows  cannot  be\nconsidered as  acting  in  any\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the\nsecurity of  the State because it cannot be considered as an\nattempt to  overthrow or  overawe the Government established\nby law in the State. The fact that the detenu had sent hand-\nbills and  booklets to\tarouse the  sentiments of the people\nagainst the  proposed execution\t of Z.\tA. Bhutto  cannot be\nconsidered as  an act  prejudicial to  the security  of\t the\nState because  the State of Jammu and Kashmir had nothing to\ndo with\t the proposed  execution. The other grounds are also\nvague in  so far as the question of security of the State is\nconcerned. [1111 B-E]\n     A combined\t reading of  the order\tof detention and the\ngrounds furnished  to the detenu shows that at the time when\nthe order  was made,  the District  Magistrate either had no\nmaterial relevant  to the  security of the State on which he\ncould act or even if he had information of those grounds, he\ndid not\t propose to act on it. He, however, tried to support\nthe order  of detention\t by stating  in the  course  of\t the\ngrounds that  by the detenu remaining at large, the security\nof the State was likely to be prejudiced. [1111 G-H]\n1105\n     The expressions  \"law and\torder\", \"public\t order\"\t and\n\"security of  the State\"  are distinct\tconcepts though\t now\nalways separate. Whereas every breach of peace may amount to\ndisturbance of\tlaw and\t order, every  such breach  does not\namount to  disturbance of  public  order  and  every  public\ndisorder may  not prejudicially\t affect the \"security of the\nState.\" [1112 A-B]\n     Romesh Thapper  v. The  State of  Madras,<\/a> [1950] S.C.R.\n594 at p. 600 applied.\n     An act  may affect\t law and  order but not public order\njust as\t an act\t may affect public order but not security of\nState. It  is for  this reason\tthat  the  Act\tdefines\t the\nexpressions  \"acting   in  any\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the\nsecurity of the State\" and \"acting in any manner prejudicial\nto the\tmaintenance of public order' separately. An order of\ndetention made\teither\ton  the\t basis\tthat  the  detaining\nauthority is  satisfied that  the person  against  whom\t the\norder is  being made  is acting in any manner prejudicial to\nthe security  of the  State or\ton  the\t basis\tthat  he  is\nsatisfied  that\t  such\tperson\t is  acting  in\t any  manner\nprejudicial to\tthe maintenance of public order but which is\nattempted to  be supported  by placing\treliance on both the\nbases in  the grounds furnished to the detenu has to be held\nto an illegal one. [1113 C-D]\n     Dr. Ram  Manohar Lohia  v. State  of  Bihar  &  Others,\n[1966] 1  S.C.R. 709.  Bhupal Chandra  Ghosh v.\t Arif Ali  &\nOthers<\/a> [1974] 2 S.C.R. 277 and Satya Brata Ghose v. Arif Ali\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
&
\n     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1125 of 1979
\n     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
\n     M. K. Ramamurthy and R. C. Pathak for the Petitioner.
\n     K.K. Venugopal,  Addl.  Solicitor\tGeneral,  and  Altaf
\nAhmed for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     VENKATARAMIAH, J-At  the conclusion  of the  hearing of
\nthe  above  petition  on  October  24,\t1979,  we  made\t the
\nfollowing order:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The\tdetenu\t Shabir\t Ahmed\tShah  who  has\tbeen
\n     detained by  the order  dated the 23nd May, 1979 of the
\n     District  Magistrate,   Anantnag  is   directed  to  be
\n     released forthwith. Reasons would follow.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The reasons  in support  of the  above order  are given
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
     The above petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
\nis filed  by the  petitioner requesting\t this Court to quash
\nthe order  of detention bearing No. 299-304\/ST dated May 23,
\n1979 passed  by the  District Magistrate,  Anantnag  in\t the
\nState of  Jammu &  Kashmir under section 8(2) of the Jammu &
\nKashmir Public\tSafety\tAct,  1978  (Act  No.  VI  of  1978)
\n(hereinafter  referred\t to  as\t ‘the  Act’)  directing\t the
\ndetention
\n1106<\/span>
\nof his\t(petitioner’s) son,  Shabir Ahmed  Shah (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the detenu’). The relevant part of the order
\nof detention reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whereas  I,\t Omar  Jan,   District\t Magistrate,
\n     Anantnag, am  satisfied that  with a view to preventing
\n     Shri Shabir  Ahmed Shah  s\/o Ghulam  Mohammad Shah\t r\/o
\n     Kadipora,\tAnantnag,   from  acting   in\tany   manner
\n     prejudicial to  the maintenance  of public order, it is
\n     necessary so to do;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Now,\ttherefore,   in\t exercise   of\tthe   powers
\n     conferred by  section 8  (2) of  the Jammu\t and Kashmir
\n     Public Safety  Act, 1978  (Act No. VI of 1978), I, Omar
\n     Jan, District  Magistrate, Anantnag  hereby direct that
\n     the said  Shri Shabir Ahmed Shah be detained in Central
\n     Jail, Srinagar.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  (Omar Jan)
\n\t\t\t\t\tDistrict Magistrate,
\n\t\t\t\t\tAnantnag”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The detenu\t was informed  in pursuance of section 13 of
\nthe Act that his detention had been ordered on the following
\ngrounds:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “1. You  originally belonged to Young Man’s LEAGUE
\n     (Hamid group)  which was  an anti-national\t and pro-Pak
\n     organization of  youngmen. You alongwith your erstwhile
\n     associates were responsible for creating subversion and
\n     danger to the maintenance of public order by organizing
\n     antinational demonstrations and protests.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  2. Later in the year 1975 when the Peoples’ League
\n     was formed\t with the  avowed object  of challenging the
\n     accession of the State of India and also for furthering
\n     the cause\tand interest  of Pakistan  in the State, you
\n     joined the party as an active member. You are currently
\n     the General  Secretary of\tthe Peoples’ League. You and
\n     Your party\t have shown  open sympathy and have tried to
\n     elicit public  opinion in\tfavour of  Mohammad  Maqbool
\n     Bhat, a  die-hard pro-Pak\tsubversive element  who\t has
\n     been sentenced  to death  on two  occasions for murder,
\n     espionage\tand   sabotage\tand  is\t currently  awaiting
\n     execution. Pamphlets  and posters\thave been  issued by
\n     the Peoples’  League in  support  of  Mohammad  Maqbool
\n     Bhat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  3.  In  January  and\tFebruary,  1970\t you  joined
\n     subversive elements  of Sopore  area and  organized the
\n     burning of reli-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1107<\/span><\/p>\n
     gious places in order to create chaos in the State. The
\n     conspiracy was,  however, unearthed by Baramulla Police
\n     in time  before much damage was done. You were arrested
\n     in Case FIR No. 38\/79 u\/s 436 RPC P\/S Sopore registered
\n     in this connection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  4. Much  before the  execution of Mr. Z. A. Bhutto
\n     in Pakistan,  you and  your party\tsent hand-bills\t and
\n     booklets to arouse the sentiments of the people against
\n     the State\tGovt. You alongwith your party members moved
\n     secretly to  maintain  contacts  with  disgruntled\t and
\n     undesirable elements  in the valley and to arouse their
\n     base sentiments in this connection and context.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  5. In\t the third  week of  March, 1979,  when some
\n     unemployed youth  started hunger  strike at  Lal Chowk,
\n     Anantnag, you  lent support  to the  CPI ML  and  other
\n     parties who  were out  to create  disturbances  and  to
\n     incite the youth to resort to violence and disorder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  6. On 29-3-1979 you alongwith your colleagues held
\n     a meeting\tand  decided  to  disturb  public  order  in
\n     Anantnag town  in the  context of pro-Bhutto sentiments
\n     and demonstrations the next day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  7. Consequently  on 30-3-1979\t you alongwith\tyour
\n     associates moved  stealthily to warn the shopkeepers to
\n     close their  shops. You  also incited the people to put
\n     road blocks  and stop  traffic. You and your associates
\n     organized a  strike in  Anantnag College when it opened
\n     on 30th. Later in the day you alongwith your associates
\n     incited  youths   to  resort  to  violence\t and  create
\n     disorder. Consequently  a\tlot  of\t violence  including
\n     murderous assault on the Police and the Magistracy took
\n     place in  Anantnag town  in which\tmany officials\twere
\n     seriously\tinjured.   A  case   FIR   No.\t 98\/79\t u\/s
\n     302\/148\/336\/332\/149\/120-B RPC  was registered. You went
\n     underground and  could not\t be arrested  for quite some
\n     time but  you were\t arrested in the case later. You are
\n     presently on  bail\t in  this  case.  On  7-4-1979\twhen
\n     normalcy was  being restored in Anantnag town and shops
\n     were  being   opened,  you\t alongwith  your  associates
\n     appeared near  Lal Chowk and threatened shop-keepers to
\n     close shops.  Their shouting and running had the effect
\n     of creating tension in the
\n1108<\/span>
\n     town and  many shops  were closed.\t Police\t efforts  to
\n     arrest you could not succeed as you ran away in the by-
\n     lanes and later went underground.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  8. More  recently you have been collaborating with
\n     antinational, pro-Pak  elements who come to hold secret
\n     talks and\tlinks with  you. You  are  a  dangerous\t and
\n     desparate character  out  to  create  chaos,  disorder,
\n     subversion and  the like  to achieve  your\t ends.\tYour
\n     remaining at large is prejudicial to the maintenance of
\n     public order  and also  to the security of the State. I
\n     am convinced  that unless\tyou are\t detained  there  is
\n     every likelihood  that  you  will\tcontinue  to  create
\n     confusion in  public  minds  and  instigate  people  to
\n     lawlessness  and\tdisturbance  of\t  public  peace\t and
\n     tranquility.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (The paragraphs  are numbered  by us for the purpose of
\nconvenience).\n<\/p>\n
     It may  be noted  that whereas  the order\tof detention
\nstated that it had been passed with a view to preventing the
\ndetenu\t“from  acting  in  any\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\nmaintenance of\tpublic order”,\tin the last paragraph of the
\ngrounds furnished  to the  detenu, it  was stated that “your
\nremaining at  large is\tprejudicial to\tthe  maintenance  of
\npublic order  and also\tto the\tsecurity of  the State”. The
\nrelevant part  of section 8 of the Act under which the order
\nof detention is passed reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “8.  Detention   of\tcertain\t  persons.-(1)\t The
\n     Government may-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) if  satisfied with  respect to any person that
\n     with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
\n     prejudicial to-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)\tthe security of the State or the maintenance
\n\t       of the public order, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) the  maintenance\t of  supplies  and  services
\n\t       essential to the community; or.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  …. … … … … … … ..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     it is  necessary so to do, make an order directing that
\n     such person be detained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1109<\/span><\/p>\n
     (2) Any of the following officers namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) Divisional Commissioners,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) District Magistrates,
\n     may, if  satisfied as  provided in\t sub-clauses (i) and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) of  clause (a)  of sub-section  (1), exercise\t the
\n     powers conferred by the said sub-section.
\n\t  (3) For the purpose of sub-section (1),-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)\t“acting in  any manner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\n\t       security\t  of   the   State”   means   making
\n\t       preparations for using, or attempting to use,
\n\t       or using\t or instigating, inciting, provoking
\n\t       or otherwise  abetting the  use of  force, to
\n\t       overthrow   or\t overawe   the\t  Government
\n\t       established by law in the State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)\t“acting in  any manner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\n\t       maintenance of public order” means-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)\t promoting,  propagating  or  attempting  to
\n\t       create,\tfeelings  of  enmity  or  hatred  or
\n\t       disharmony  on  grounds\tof  religion,  race,
\n\t       caste, community, or region;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) making  preparations for using, or attempting
\n\t       to use,\tor using,  or instigating, inciting,
\n\t       provoking,  otherwise  abetting\tthe  use  of
\n\t       force   where\tsuch   preparation,   using,
\n\t       attempting, instigating,\t inciting, provoking
\n\t       or abetting, disturbs or is likely to disturb
\n\t       public order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   (iii) attempting  to commit,\t or  committing,  or
\n\t       instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise
\n\t       abetting the  commission of,  mischief within
\n\t       the meaning  of section\t425  of\t the  Ranbir
\n\t       Penal  Code  where  the\tcommission  of\tsuch
\n\t       mischief disturbs,  or is  likely to  disturb
\n\t       public order;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (iv)\tattempting  to\tcommit,\t or  committing,  or
\n\t       instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise
\n\t       abetting\t the   commission  of\tan   offence
\n\t       punishable with\tdeath  or  imprisonment\t for
\n\t       life or\timprisonment for a term extending to
\n\t       seven years  or more, where the commission of
\n\t       such  offence   disturbs,  or  is  likely  to
\n\t       disturb public order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  seen from  section 8(1) (a) (i) and section 8(2)
\nof the\tAct extracted  above  that  the\t Government  or\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate  may, if  satisfied with  respect to any
\nperson that with a view to preventing him
\n1110<\/span>
\nfrom acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the
\nState or  the maintenance of the public order, make an order
\ndirecting that\tsuch  person  be  detained.  The  expression
\n“acting in  any manner\tprejudicial to\tthe security  of the
\nState” is defined in clause (a) of subsection (3) of section
\n8 of  the Act as making preparation for using, or attempting
\nto use,\t or using  or instigating,  inciting,  provoking  or
\notherwise abetting  the use of force to overthrow or overawe
\nthe Government\testablished by\tlaw in the State. Clause (b)
\nof section 8(3) of the Act defines the expression “acting in
\nany manner  prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”.
\nThe distinction between the two expressions lies in the fact
\nthat while  in the  case of the former, the object of making
\npreparation or instigating or abetting the use of force etc.
\nshould\tbe   with  a  view  to\toverthrow  or  overawe\t“the
\nGovernment established\tby law in the State”, in the case of
\nthe latter,  the object of the acts mentioned therein should
\nbe disturbance of public order.\n<\/p>\n
     As already\t mentioned, while  the\torder  of  detention
\nstates that  it was being made with a view to preventing the
\ndetenu\tfrom   acting  in  any\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\nmaintenance of\tpublic order,  in the  grounds disclosed  to
\nhim, it had been stated that the detenu’s remaining at large
\nwas prejudicial\t to the maintenance of public order and also
\nto the\tsecurity of the State. We shall now briefly refer to
\nthe nature  of the grounds furnished to the detenu. First we
\nshall deal  with paragraphs  (1), (3)  and (5) to (7) of the
\ngrounds. In  paragraph (1) of the grounds, it is stated that
\nthe  detenu   alongwith\t  his\terstwhile   associates\t was
\nresponsible  for  creating  subversion\tand  danger  to\t the
\nmaintenance of\tpublic\torder  by  organizing  anti-national
\ndemonstrations\tand   protests.\t In  paragraph\t(3)  of\t the
\ngrounds, it  is stated\tthat in\t January and February, 1979,
\nthe detenu had joined subversive elements of Sopore area and
\norganized the burning of religious places in order to create
\nchaos in  the State.  In paragraph (5) of the grounds, it is
\nstated that in the third week of March, 1979, the detenu had
\nlent support  to the Communist Party of India (ML) and other
\nparties who  were out  to create  disturbances and to incite
\nthe youth  to resort  to violence  and\tdisorder  when\tsome
\nunemployed  youth   started  hunger  strike  at\t Lal  Chowk,
\nAnantnag. In paragraph (6) of the grounds, it is stated that
\non March  29, 1979,  the detenu had alongwith his colleagues
\nheld a\tmeeting and  decided  to  disturb  public  order  in
\nAnantnag town.\tIn paragraph  (7) of the grounds, there is a
\nreference to  the detenu  alongwith his\t associates inciting
\nthe youth  to resort  to violence and create disorder. It is
\nthus clear  that paragraphs  (1), (3)  and (5) to (7) of the
\ngrounds, there\tis no  reference to  any attempt made by the
\ndetenu to  use force  to overthrow or overawe the Government
\nestablished by
\n1111<\/span>
\nlaw in the State. Paragraphs (2), (4) and (8) of the grounds
\nare also  in no\t way different.\t In  paragraph\t(2)  of\t the
\ngrounds, although  there is  reference to the detenu joining
\nPeoples’ League, which had been formed with an avowed object
\nof challenging the accession of the State of Jammu & Kashmir
\nto India  and also  for furthering the cause and interest of
\nPakistan in  the State,\t the act attributed to the detenu is
\nthat he\t had tried  to elicit  public opinion  in favour  of
\nMohammad Maqbool  Bhat who  had been  sentenced to death. An
\nattempt on  the part of any citizen to elicit public opinion
\nin favour of a person who had been sentenced to death and to
\nsave him  from the gallows cannot be considered as acting in
\nany manner  prejudicial to the security of the State because
\nit cannot  be considered  as  an  attempt  to  overthrow  or
\noverawe the  Government established  by law  in\t the  State.
\nSimilarly the  act attributed to the detenu in paragraph (4)
\nof the grounds cannot be considered as an act prejudicial to
\nthe security of the State as what is alleged therein is that
\nmuch before  the execution  of Mr. Z. A. Bhutto in Pakistan,
\nthe detenu  had sent  hand-bills and  booklets to arouse the
\nsentiments of  the people.  Although it\t is stated  that the
\ndetenu had  tried to  arouse the  sentiments of\t the  people
\nagainst the State Government, the alleged act on the part of
\nthe detenu even if it was true could not be considered to be
\nprejudicial to\tthe security of the State of Jammu & Kashmir
\nbecause the  State of Jammu & Kashmir had nothing to do with
\nthe proposed  execution of  Mr. Z.  A. Bhutto.\tGround No. 8
\nwhich lacks  material particulars  appears to  be a  general
\none. These  grounds are also vague in so far as the question
\nof security of the State is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  thus clear\tthat none of the grounds supplied to
\nthe detenu  falls within  the scope of clause (a) of section
\n8(3) (1)  of the Act which defines the expression “acting in
\nany manner  prejudicial to the security of the State”. It is
\nfurther seen  that even\t though it  is stated in the grounds
\nthat the District Magistrate was of the view that the detenu
\nremaining at  large was\t prejudicial to\t the security of the
\nState also,  he did  not make  the  order  with\t a  view  to
\npreventing him\tfrom acting in any manner prejudicial to the
\nsecurity of  the State.\t A combined  reading of the order of
\ndetention and the grounds furnished to the detenu shows that
\nat the time when the order was made, the District Magistrate
\neither had no material relevant to the security of the State
\non which he could act or even if he had information of those
\ngrounds, he did not propose to act on it. He, however, tried
\nto support  the order  of detention by stating in the course
\nof the\tgrounds that  by the  detenu remaining\tat large the
\nsecurity of the State was likely to be prejudiced.\n<\/p>\n
1112<\/span><\/p>\n
     The expressions  “law and\torder”, “public\t order”\t and
\n“security of  the State”  are distinct\tconcepts though\t not
\nalways separate. Whereas every breach of peace may amount to
\ndisturbance of\tlaw and\t order, every  such breach  does not
\namount to  disturbance of  public  order  and  every  public
\ndisorder may  not prejudicially\t affect the “security of the
\nState”. This  is borne\tout from  the observations  made  by
\nPatanjali Sastri, J. in the decision of this Court in Romesh
\nThappar v. The State of Madras<\/a> (1) which are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As  Stephen\t in  his  Criminal  Law\t of  England
\n     observes: Unlawful\t assemblies,  riots,  insurrections,
\n     rebellions, levying of war, are offences which run into
\n     each other\t and are  not capable of being marked off by
\n     perfectly defined\tboundaries.  All  of  them  have  in
\n     common one feature, namely that the normal tranquillity
\n     of\t a  civilized  society\tis  in\teach  of  the  cases
\n     mentioned disturbed  either by actual force or at least
\n     by the  show  and\tthreat\tof  it.”  Though  all  these
\n     offences\tthus\tinvolve\t  disturbances\t of   public
\n     tranquillity and  are in theory offences against public
\n     order,  the   difference  between\tthem  being  only  a
\n     difference of  degree, yet\t for the  purpose of grading
\n     the punishment  to be inflicted in respect of them they
\n     may be  classified into  different minor  categories as
\n     has been  done by the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the
\n     Constitution, in  formulating the\tvarying criteria for
\n     permissible legislation  imposing restrictions  on\t the
\n     fundamental rights\t enumerated in\tarticle\t 19(1),\t has
\n     placed in\ta distinct  category those  offences against
\n     public order  which aim  at undermining the security of
\n     the State or overthrowing it, and made their prevention
\n     the sole  justification for  legislative abridgement of
\n     freedom of\t speech and  expression,  that\tis  to\tsay,
\n     nothing less  than endangering  the foundations  of the
\n     State  or\t threatening  its  overthrow  could  justify
\n     curtailment of  the rights\t to freedom  of\t speech\t and
\n     expression, while the right of peaceable assembly “sub-
\n     clause (b)”  and (c)  right of  association “sub-clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)” may  be restricted  under clauses  (3) and  (4) of
\n     Article 19 in the interests of “public order,” which in
\n     those clauses  includes the  security of the State. The
\n     differentiation is\t also noticeable  in Entry 3 of List
\n     III (Concurrent  List) of\tthe Seventh  Schedule, which
\n     refers to the “security of a State” and “maintenance of
\n     public order”  as distinct subjects of legislation. The
\n     Constitution thus\trequires a  line to  be drawn in the
\n     field of public order or tranquillity
\n1113<\/span>
\n     marking off,  may be,  roughly,  the  boundary  between
\n     those serious  and aggravated  forms of public disorder
\n     which are\tcalculated to  endanger the  security of the
\n     State and the relatively minor breaches of the peace of
\n     a purely  local significance, treating for this purpose
\n     differences in  degree as\tif they\t were differences in
\n     kind.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As observed by Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Dr.
\nRam Manohar  – Lohia  v. State\tof Bihar  & Ors.  one has to
\nimagine three concentric circles, in order to understand the
\nmeaning and import of the above expressions. ‘Law and order’
\nrepresents the\tlargest circle\twithin\twhich  is  the\tnext
\ncircle representing  “public order”  and the smallest circle
\nrepresents “security  of State”. It is then easy to see that
\nan act may affect law and order but not public order just as
\nan act may affect public order but not security of State. It
\nis in  view of\tthe above  distinction, the  Act defines the
\nexpressions  “acting   in  any\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\nsecurity of the State” and “acting in any manner prejudicial
\nto the\tmaintenance of public order” separately. An order of
\ndetention made\teither\ton  the\t basis\tthat  the  detaining
\nauthority is  satisfied that  the person  against  whom\t the
\norder is  being made  is acting in any manner prejudicial to
\nthe security  of the  State or\ton  the\t basis\tthat  he  is
\nsatisfied  that\t  such\tperson\t is  acting  in\t any  manner
\nprejudicial to\tthe maintenance of public order but which is
\nattempted to  be supported  by placing\treliance on both the
\nbases in  the grounds furnished to the detenu has to be held
\nto be  an illegal one vide decisions of this Court in Bhupal
\nChandra Ghosh v. Arif Ali & Ors.<\/a>(2) and Satya Brata Ghose v.
\nArif Ali & Ors<\/a>(3).\n<\/p>\n
     The order\tof detention  is, therefore,  liable  to  be
\nquashed and the detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. The
\npetition is accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the above conclusion, we have not gone into
\nthe other contention urged by Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi that many
\nof the\tgrounds furnished  to the  detenu being\t vague,\t the
\norder of  detention cannot  be supported  even on the ground
\nthat it had been passed with a view to preventing the detenu
\nfrom acting against public order.\n<\/p>\n
N.K.A.\t\t\t\t\t   Petition allowed.\n1114<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 494, 1980 SCR (1)1104 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: G. M. SHAH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/10\/1979 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) TULZAPURKAR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nG. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-31T22:56:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-31T22:56:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\"},\"wordCount\":3220,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\",\"name\":\"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-31T22:56:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-31T22:56:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979","datePublished":"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-31T22:56:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979"},"wordCount":3220,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979","name":"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-31T22:56:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-shah-vs-state-of-jammu-kashmir-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. M. Shah vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 October, 1979"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}