The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that merely because a person is involved on offences related to transportation of bovine animals without permission is not a sufficient ground to invoke the remedy of preventive detention.

The Court added that in a case where the detaining authority has not recorded any subjective satisfaction that such activities of the detenue have either resulted or have the potential to lead to public outrage, such orders are unsustainable in law.

The Bench of Justice MA Chowdhary held, "From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is clear that merely because the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the offences relating to transportation of bovine animals without permission is not a sufficient ground to invoke the remedy of preventive detention, particularly, in a case where the detaining authority has not recorded any subjective satisfaction that such activities of the detenue have either resulted or have the potential to lead to public outrage. The impugned order of detention is, therefore, unsustainable in law on this ground."

Advocate Nitin Mohan appeared for the Petitioner, while Deputy AG Dewakar Sharma appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts

A habeas corpus petition was filed by the brother of the detenue seeking to quash the order passed by Respondent No. 2/District Magistrate whereby he was directed to be detained under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act to prevent him from acting in any manner which is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Contentions of the Parties

It was the case of the Petitioner that the grounds of detention were vague, mechanical and based merely upon registration of FIRs which did not disclose any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; secondly that there was no proximate link between the prejudicial activities and the detention order; and thirdly that the detenue was informed about his right to make effective representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority.

Respondent No. 2 submitted that the detention order was passed on the basis of relevant material, including multiple FIRs and police records, showing the petitioner to be involved in bovine smuggling cases and his continuous criminal/anti-social activities are posing a threat to public order.

It was also contended by Respondent No. 2 that the Detenue was indulged in three cases of bovine smuggling.

Observations of the Court

The Court analysed the whether there was any proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order. It was observed that the impugned detention order was passed based on three cases filed in 2023 and 20225, therefore, the alleged prejudicial activities can be stated to be a link between the prejudicial activities and the detention order based thereon.

Regarding the last ground, the Court held, "The constitutional guarantee of making a representation is meaningful only when the detenue is clearly informed of the authorities before whom such representation can be made and the earliest opportunity to exercise that right. Non-communication of this valuable constitutional right deprives the detenue of an effective opportunity to challenge the detention at the earliest stage, thereby vitiating the detention order. The same constitutes a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Since the procedural safeguards governing preventive detention are mandatory and must be strictly complied with, such omission vitiates the detention order illegal and liable to be set aside."

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned detention order. Consequently, the detenue was directed to be released forthwith.

Cause Title: Sabeer Ahmed v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:2716]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Nitin Mohan

Respondents: Deputy AG Dewakar Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice MA ChowdharyJammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Aastha Kaushik