Section 126: Security for keeping peace in other cases
Section 126 prescribes a legal structure which grants power to Executive Magistrates to act in preventive ways towards individuals who can reasonably be suspected of being likely to disturb public peace or otherwise whose conduct is likely to threaten public tranquility.
An Executive Magistrate can take preventive steps if he has reasons to believe that a person is likely to commit an act which may lead to a breach of peace or otherwise disturb public order. The Magistrate must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for taking such preventive action.
If the Executive Magistrate is of the opinion that it is necessary, he may direct the person concerned to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping peace. The period for which the bond may be directed to be executed shall not exceed one year.
Any Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where the apprehended disturbance may take place, or over the area in which the person resides, shall have the authority to institute proceedings under this section. This provision enables preventive action even if the prospective unlawful act may take place outside the immediate jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Section 126 acts as a preventive measure rather than a punitive one, which only kicks in after conviction. It allows the authorities to intervene beforehand before any actual breach of peace has taken place, thereby ensuring public order without having to wait for criminal charges or conviction. This preventive mechanism is intended to address a situation where there is a credible threat to public tranquility but no prior criminal act has been committed.
The powers that Section 126 confers will have a severe impact on a person's individual liberties, since restriction can be ordered and imposed without holding a trial and conviction. Thus, there is an importance of prudent application of the discretion by Executive Magistrates to refrain from an abuse of such restrictions on individual freedom. The challenge lies in balancing the protection of public order with the protection of the rights of individuals from arbitrary or excessive intervention
