“Demonstrably Pertains To Public Order”: Allahabad High Court Upholds NSA Detention For Cattle Slaughter On Eid Coinciding With Navratri

The Court was hearing three connected habeas corpus petitions challenging detention orders passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(2) of the NSA in relation to an incident of alleged cattle slaughter.

A Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I held: “…upon a careful examination of the grounds of detention in the light of the settled legal principles governing the distinction between "law and order" and "public order", this Court finds that the impugned detention orders are founded on material that legitimately and demonstrably pertains to "public order", ...the alleged activity and its aftermath community-wide fear and behavioural change, inter-community tension, risk of communal violence, extraordinary administrative response, and a contemporaneous intelligence assessment of public order collapse collectively establish a disturbance of the even tempo of community life in named localities going well beyond an isolated criminal offence”.

Background

The matter arose from an FIR registered under Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, police personnel on patrolling duty allegedly discovered 7–8 persons engaged in the illegal slaughter of cattle between fields. One accused was apprehended at the spot, and a knife and approximately 2–3 quintals of meat were allegedly made. Names of other accused were disclosed thereafter.

The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody. Two of them were granted bail by competent courts. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, acting under Section 3(2) of the NSA, passed detention orders which were later approved by the State Government.

The matter was placed before the U.P. Advisory Board, which opined that sufficient cause existed for preventive detention. Acting on the Board’s opinion, the State Government confirmed the detention for a period of one year.

The petitioners contended that the detention orders were illegal, arbitrary, and passed without proper application of mind. It was argued that the case, at best, involved breach of law and order and did not warrant the invocation of the NSA.

They further submitted that the prosecution's case was founded primarily on statements of police personnel, that the investigation had culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet, and that there was no criminal history apart from the present case. It was also contended that constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 19 and 21 had been violated and that the detention orders were mala fide.

The State argued that the incident, having regard to its timing and nature, caused widespread fear and communal tension in the locality and disturbed communal harmony. It was submitted that the act had the potential to trigger communal violence and therefore squarely affected public order and not merely law and order.

The State further submitted that all procedural safeguards under the NSA had been strictly complied with, including timely approval by the State Government, reference to the Advisory Board, opportunity of hearing, and communication of rejection of representations.

Court’s Observation

The Allahabad High Court commenced its analysis by reiterating the constitutional and statutory framework governing preventive detention. It underscored that preventive detention is not punitive but precautionary in nature, and that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, though not immune from judicial review, is open to interference only on limited grounds such as non-application of mind, reliance on irrelevant or extraneous material, vagueness disabling representation, absence of a live and proximate link, or breach of mandatory procedural safeguards.

Tracing the evolution of preventive detention jurisprudence from A.K. Gopalan to subsequent decisions, including Khudiram Das, Haradhan Saha, and A.K. Roy, the Court emphasised that while Article 21 protects personal liberty, Article 22 expressly contemplates preventive detention subject to strict procedural compliance. The Court held that constitutional courts do not sit in appeal over the sufficiency of material but examine whether the statutory purpose, procedural safeguards, and jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied.

On the distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” the Court relied on settled precedent to reiterate that every breach of law does not amount to disturbance of public order. The determining test, it observed, is whether the act disturbs the “even tempo of life” of the community at large. An isolated criminal act affecting specific individuals may fall within law and order, but when the impact extends to the community, generates widespread fear, communal tension, or threatens normal life in the locality, it crosses into the realm of public order.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court examined the grounds of detention and the material placed before the detaining authority. It noted that the alleged act of cattle slaughter was committed on a sensitive date, Eid, coinciding with the first day of Chaitra Navratri, and that the detaining authority had recorded its satisfaction based on reports indicating community-wide fear, inter-community tension, extraordinary administrative mobilisation, and intelligence inputs suggesting a real apprehension of communal disturbance. The Court held that these factors collectively demonstrated disturbance of the even tempo of life in the named localities and therefore bore a rational nexus to maintenance of public order.

The Bench further examined the procedural compliance under the NSA. It found that the detention orders were passed under Section 3(2) by the competent authority; the orders were approved within the statutory period; grounds of detention were communicated; representations were considered and rejected within reasonable time; the matter was placed before the Advisory Board within the prescribed period; the detenues were afforded opportunity of personal hearing; and the State Government confirmed the detention after receipt of the Advisory Board’s opinion. The Court held that there was no breach of Sections 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 or 13 of the Act.

Addressing the petitioners’ contention that the matter was at best one for ordinary criminal law, the Court reiterated that pendency of prosecution or grant of bail does not preclude preventive detention where the detaining authority, on relevant material, forms satisfaction that there exists a real possibility of release and likelihood of prejudicial activities upon release. It held that the detaining authority had recorded such satisfaction on cogent material.

In sum, the Court concluded that the detention orders were founded on relevant and proximate material, that the statutory safeguards had been complied with, and that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority could not be said to be vitiated on any recognised ground of judicial review.

Conclusion

Finding no procedural violation, non-application of mind, or reliance on extraneous material, the Allahabad High Court held that the detention orders were legally sustainable.

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petitions were dismissed, and the detention of the petitioners under the National Security Act, 1980, was upheld

Cause Title: Hasnen v. Union of India and Others c/w Saiyyaj Ali v. State of U.P. and Sikandar v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:43774-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocate Sushil Kumar

Respondents: Manish Pandey, ASGI; S.K. Ojha, AGA

Click here to read/download Judgment