Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Of Man Accused Of Slaughter Of Bovine, Disturbing Religious Harmony

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention order against a man accused of bovine slaughter and disturbing religious harmony.

The Court was considering a Petition challenging proceedings of the detaining authority, by virtue of which the detenu was detained under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar rejected all the contentions of the Counsel for the Petitioner, observing that they all were "without any merit".

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Asheesh Singh Kotwal, while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner had challenged the impugned order of detention on the ground that there was no material on record before the detaining authority to draw a satisfaction that the detenu was indulging in activities endangering public order. It was contended that the impugned order of detention was passed without application of mind. It was further contended that the impugned order of detention was passed on the basis of (16) daily diary reports, but copies of the same were not furnished to the detenu.

On the other hand, the detaining authority submitted that the detenu did not mend his ways even after being booked in substantive offences and even after being granted bail, continued engaging in activities that were causing communal disharmony. It was submitted that the activities of the detenu were detrimental to the maintenance of public order and communal harmony. It was also submitted that the detenu was involved in the slaughtering of a calf (bovine animal), and the meat of the bovine animal was recovered from his possession.

It was averred that he was granted bail, but the activities in which the detenu had indulged created feelings of hatred and disturbed religious harmony, thereby threatening public order, which prompted the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. It was submitted that all material forming the basis of the grounds of detention was furnished to the detenu, and that all the imperatives, statutory and constitutional, were adhered to by the Respondents while executing the impugned order of detention.

Reasoning By Court

The Court, at the outset, observed that the grounds of detention indicate that there was unrest and a breakdown of communal harmony in District Kishtwar

"A perusal of the dossier reveals that the details of the incidents which led to the registration of these (16) daily diary report are mentioned therein. The receipt relating to copy of the dossier by the detenu is not in dispute. The daily diary reports are available in the record produced by the respondents. The gist of the incidents, as mentioned in the dossier of detention, is comprehensive enough to cover the essential aspects of the daily diary reports. Therefore, the contention of the detenu that copies of daily diary reports were not furnished to him, even if assumed to be correct, could not have affected his ability to make an effective and suitable representation against the impugned order of detention, in the facts and circumstances of the present case," the Court observed.

Noting that a perusal of the execution report reveals that the detenu has received the detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention and the dossier of detention, the Court stressed that it does not lie in the mouth of the detenu to contend that he has not received the copies of daily diary reports on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated.

It further rejected the contention that the detention order was passed without application of mind observing, "...it is to be noted that the detaining authority has clearly indicated in the grounds of detention that, after grant of bail in favour of the detenu, several demonstrations and protests were held across District Kishtwar, as due to the alleged act of the detenu, religious sentiments of a particular community were hurt. It has been recorded by the detaining authority that this situation created a threat to public order, thereby compelling it to pass the impugned order of detention. Keeping in view the fact that the detaining authority had the requisite material before it to frame such an opinion, it would not be open to this Court to undertake a judicial review of the opinion framed by the detaining authority, particularly when it is based upon the material placed before it by the sponsoring agency. The contention of the learned counsel for the detenu in this regard is, therefore, without any merit."

With respect to the contention that the order of rejection of representation of the detenu was conveyed to him, yet, no reasons were assigned, the Court noted that the requirement of law is that a detenu has to be informed about the result of his representation, but, there is no requirement in law to furnish reasons regarding the decision of the competent authority for rejection or acceptance of such representation.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sher Mohd vs. UT of J&K and others

Click here to read/ download Order