Journalism of Courage
Relief for man as court quashes preventive detention over ‘illegal’ bovine transport
The man's detention order was challenged before the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court citing that it was vague and based only on FIRs which did not disclose any activity that could affect public order.
The authorities argued that the man’s anti-social activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and repeated involvement in offences showed his criminal propensity. (AI-generated image)
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently quashed a man’s preventive detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that mere allegations of transporting bovine animals without permission are not enough to invoke such detention.
Justice M A Chowdhary made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus plea filed on behalf of the detainee who had been held under an order passed by the Rajouri district magistrate for allegedly transporting the animals without permission.
“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 August 21 order read.
‘Mechanical detention order’
The detention order dated March 3 was challenged on the grounds that it was vague, mechanical and based only upon registration of FIRs which did not disclose any activity that could affect public order. It was argued that there was no immediate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order which was based on stale reference to FIRs from 2023 and 2025.
It was also alleged that the detainee was not informed about his right to make an effective representation to the government and to the detaining authority.
Justice M A Chowdhary pronounced the order on August 21.
On the other hand, the district magistrate stressed that the detention order was passed on the basis of relevant material, including multiple FIRs and police records. It was stated that he was involved in three cases of bovine smuggling which showed that he had no respect for the law.
It was further argued that his continuous criminal/anti-social activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the district and repeated involvement in such offences showed his criminal propensity.
Story continues below this ad
Order quashed
The high court found that while the detainee had been informed that he could make a representation to the government against his detention, he was not informed that he could also make a representation to the detaining authority. It noted that the non-communication of this valuable constitutional right deprived him of an effective opportunity to challenge the detention at the earliest stage, thereby vitiating the detention order.
The judge observed that the constitutional guarantee of making a representation is meaningful only when the detainee is clearly informed of the authorities before whom such representation can be made and the earliest opportunity to exercise that right.
“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,” the court said.
The court, hence, quashed the detention order and directed that the man be released, unless required in connection with any other case.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog
Advertisement