The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act against an individual accused of transporting bovine animals without permission, ruling that such allegations alone do not justify preventive custody.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition, Justice M A Chowdhary directed that the detainee be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other pending matter. The court held that preventive detention cannot be invoked merely on accusations of unauthorised bovine transport when the detaining authority has failed to establish that the conduct caused or carried the potential to provoke public outrage or disrupt public order.
Absence of Threat to Public Order
The ruling pertains to a detention order issued on March 3 by the Rajouri District Magistrate. In defending the detention, the district administration submitted that the measure was grounded in police records and multiple First Information Reports detailing three separate instances of bovine smuggling. The administration argued that the individual’s continuous involvement in such offences demonstrated criminal propensity and posed a threat to the maintenance of public order in the district.
Challenging the custody, the petitioner contended that the detention order was vague, mechanically issued, and based on stale FIR references from 2023 and 2025 that showed no direct or immediate link to any disturbance of public order.
In the August 21 order, the court observed that preventive detention requires the detaining authority to record subjective satisfaction showing how the alleged acts endangered public tranquility, a threshold not met in this case.
Violation of Mandatory Procedural Rights
The High Court also highlighted a fatal procedural defect in the execution of the detention order. Although the detainee was informed of his right to submit a representation against his custody to the government, authorities failed to apprise him of his right to make a representation before the detaining authority itself.
Justice Chowdhary ruled that the constitutional guarantee permitting a detainee to make an effective representation is meaningful only when they are clearly informed of every competent authority before whom relief can be sought at the earliest stage. Holding that statutory and constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention must be strictly observed, the court determined that the omission rendered the detention order illegal and unsustainable under law.
