The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order passed under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, against an individual accused of bovine smuggling and other offences.

The Court observed that bovine smuggling hurts the religious sentiments of the public at large and distorts public order.

The Court observed that there was non-application of mind by the detaining authority and failure to consider the detenu's existing custody and pending bail. 

Another bench of the High Court had upheld the preventive detention of a man who was accused of smuggling bovine animals, specifically cows and calves. The Single Judge observed that the act of smuggling cattle posed not just a law and order issue but also a threat to public order, particularly because such activities hurt the religious sentiments of certain communities.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani observed, "The idea of protecting animals in India is very old. Ancient legal texts and religious scriptures taught people to treat animals with kindness. Two important ideas from Indian thought are “ahimsa ”, viz. non-violence, and “dharma ” viz. duty. These ideas still shape how people in India see animals. Cows, elephants, and buffalo are respected in a special way, which is a unique part of Indian culture. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, was a very important law. It was made to stop unnecessary pain and suffering to animals. This law also gave police and other officials the power to punish people who are cruel to animals."

Senior Advocate MA Goni appeared for the Appellant, while Government Advocate Ilyas Laway appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

An appeal was filed assailing the judgment and order passed by the writ court dismissing a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the Appellant herein challenging the detention made by the District Magistrate under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

The Appellant was alleged to be involved in various criminal activities and, therefore, was arrested many times in connection with cases. He was also alleged to be involved in cases related to bovine smuggling. 

The impugned order concluded that the order of detention was legally sound and did not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity.

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellant submitted that the detention order was passed without recording any compelling reasons or likelihood of his release; that the detaining authority did not show any awareness of the fact that the Appellant had been admitted to bail and made no reference to the pendency of the bail application in another case. 

 He also submitted that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier; and that the appellant, being a semi-literate person, was not supplied with translated copies of the grounds of detention and material, rendering his right of effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution nugatory.

Per Contra, the State supported the impugned judgment and argued that all statutory safeguards had been complied with; that the entire material was supplied to the detenu on the very day of execution of the warrant of detention.

Observations/Findings of the Court

The Court noted that though subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not amenable to judicial review on its correctness or sufficiency, the same is certainly subject to judicial scrutiny on the grounds of non-application of mind, non-consideration of relevant material, consideration of irrelevant material, mala fides and violation of constitutional and statutory safeguards. 

The Court observed that neither the grounds of detention nor the order of detention disclose any awareness of the detaining authority about the custody of the detenu, nor has any compelling reason been recorded so as to justify the invocation of extraordinary power of preventive detention against a person who was already behind bars and available to the authorities.

"This reflects gross non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority and demonstrates that subjective satisfaction, mandated under the Act of 1978, was neither genuine nor independently arrived at. The impugned detention order is, therefore, vitiated in law", the Court held.

It was observed that the animal protection laws have changed in the country and these changes show the relationship between humans and animals. 

"Besides, the smuggling of bovine animals is not only a criminal offence but it is also an act which hurts the religious sentiments of the largest population of India. Such activities, if established against any person, are highly objectionable and have the potential to disturb public tranquillity, and, therefore, the law enforcement agencies are expected to deal with such offenders with a firm hand in accordance with law...The animals also feel pain, stress, and fear just like humans do, but our legal system still treats them like objects or property instead of living beings. Because of this, the rules made to protect them are extremely weak", the Court added.

The Court highlighted that the fines under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act are very low and therefore, there is no fear of the law. 

The Court concluded that the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention are mandatory and not directory, and any infraction thereof vitiates the detention. The answer to such criminality lies in diligent and expeditious prosecution under the ordinary criminal law and not in throwing to winds the procedural safeguards enshrined under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the detention order.

Cause Title: Anwar Jan v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. [LPA No. 145/2026]

Appearances:

Appellant: Senior Advocate MA Goni and Advocate Tanveer Ahmad

Respondents: Government Advocate Ilyas Laway

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: