Relief for man as court quashes preventive detention over ‘illegal’ bovine transport

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently invalidated a man's preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that merely alleging bovine animals were transported illegally without permission is insufficient grounds for such detention. Justice M A Chowdhary made the decision while granting a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the detainee, who had been imprisoned by the Rajouri district magistrate for allegedly moving the animals without authorization.

"Simply because the petitioner is accused of offenses related to transporting bovine animals without permission does not provide a sufficient basis to invoke preventive detention, especially when the detaining authority has not demonstrated any subjective reason to believe that the detainee's actions have led or could lead to public unrest," the August 21 order stated.

The decree, issued on March 3, was contested due to its perceived vagueness, stating it was solely based on the registration of FIRs that did not reveal any activity likely to jeopardize public order. It was argued that there was no direct connection between the alleged misconduct and the detention order, which referenced outdated FIRs from 2023 and 2025.

Additionally, it was alleged that the detainee was not made aware of his right to submit a petition to the government and the detaining authority. Justice M A Chowdhary issued the order on August 21. Meanwhile, the district magistrate contended that the detention order was justified by relevant evidence, including numerous FIRs and police documents, and that the detainee had been implicated in three instances of bovine smuggling, demonstrating a disregard for the law.

It was further argued that his repeated involvement in such criminal activities posed a threat to public order in the district, indicating his propensity for criminal actions. The court found that while the detainee was informed he could challenge his detention with the government, he was not notified he could also challenge it with the detaining authority.

It noted that withholding this crucial constitutional right deprived the detainee of the earliest opportunity to contest the detention, thus rendering the detention order invalid and open to reversal. The judge emphasized that the constitutional entitlement to make a representation is only meaningful when the detainee is explicitly informed of the authorities to whom such representation can be addressed and the earliest opportunity to exercise that right.

"Given that the procedural safeguards for preventive detention are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, such a failure to comply vitiates the detention order, rendering it illegal and subject to being overturned," the court declared. The court consequently quashed the detention order and ordered the man's release, unless he was required for involvement in another case.