Srinagar, Aug 27: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that involvement in cases concerning unauthorised transportation of bovine animals, by itself, does not warrant preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA).

Justice MA Chowdhary passed the ruling while allowing a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order issued by a District Magistrate under Section 8 of the PSA.
The Court held that criminal allegations cannot automatically be equated with activities prejudicial to public order. It noted that the detaining authority must record its subjective satisfaction that the alleged conduct has caused, or carries the potential to cause, public outrage or disturb public order.
The detention was challenged by the brother of the detenue, who argued that the grounds were vague and mechanical and relied largely on FIRs that did not establish any threat to public order. The petitioner also questioned the absence of a proximate link between the alleged activities and the detention order and alleged that the detenue had not been properly apprised of his right to make an effective representation.
The authorities, however, maintained that the detention was based on relevant material, including police records and multiple FIRs, alleging the detenue’s involvement in bovine smuggling and continued criminal and anti-social activities. They cited three such cases in support of the detention.
After examining the record, the Court considered the connection between the alleged activities and the detention order, which relied on cases registered in 2023 and 2025.
Justice Chowdhary nevertheless held that allegations relating to bovine transportation, without a demonstrated connection to public-order concerns, were insufficient to sustain preventive detention.
The Court also found that the detenue’s constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) had not been adequately protected. It stressed that a person detained under preventive-detention laws must be clearly informed of the authorities competent to receive a representation and must be given an effective opportunity to exercise that right at the earliest.
Non-communication of this constitutional right, the Court observed, deprives the detenue of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention and vitiates the order. Procedural safeguards in preventive detention, it added, are mandatory and must be strictly followed.
The High Court accordingly quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release the detenue forthwith.
Advocate Nitin Mohan appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy AG Dewakar Sharma represented the respondents.