SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Rajouri man booked in three cases concerning transportation of bovine animals without permission, holding that such allegations, by themselves, were not sufficient to invoke the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
The court also found that authorities had violated his constitutional right to make an effective representation by informing him that he could approach the Government but failing to tell him that he could also make a representation to the detaining authority. The court directed that Sabeer Ahmed be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the judgment on August 21, 2026, allowing habeas corpus petition HCP No. 19/2026 filed by Sabeer Ahmed, son of Bashir Ahmed of Bakhar, Tehsil Siot, Rajouri, through his brother Mohd. Sajid. The court quashed detention order No. DMR/PSA/03 of 2026 dated March 3, 2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Rajouri under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. Ahmed was represented by Advocate Nitin Mohan, while the Jammu and Kashmir administration was represented by Deputy Advocate General Dewakar Sharma.
The detention order had been passed to prevent Ahmed from allegedly engaging in activities considered “highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. According to the detention record, the District Magistrate relied on three FIRs: FIR No. 163/2023 registered at Police Station Nowshera under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and FIR Nos. 47/2025 and 62/2025 registered at Police Station Sunderbani under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The allegations concerned transportation of bovine animals without valid permission from the District Magistrate.
The government defended the detention by maintaining that the three cases demonstrated Ahmed’s continued involvement in criminal and anti-social activities and posed a threat to public order. It argued that the matter went beyond an ordinary law-and-order issue and had a direct bearing on public order. The District Magistrate, the government said, had examined the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri and reached the subjective satisfaction that ordinary criminal proceedings were insufficient to curb Ahmed’s alleged activities.
The authorities also maintained that he had been supplied the relevant documents and informed of his right to make a representation.
Ahmed challenged the detention on three principal grounds. He argued that the grounds were vague and mechanical and rested merely on the registration of FIRs that did not disclose conduct prejudicial to public order. He also contended that the detention order lacked a proximate link with the alleged activities because the FIRs dated from 2023 and 2025. His third contention was that he had not been properly informed of his right to make an effective representation against the detention order to both the Government and the detaining authority.
On the first issue, the High Court relied heavily on an earlier judgment of a coordinate bench in Bhupinder Kumar alias Pappu Krishan Lal v. UT of JK & Ors., reported as AIR Online 2025 JK 499. In that case, the court had examined allegations concerning transportation of bovine animals without permission and whether such conduct could constitute a threat to public order.
The earlier judgment had held that transporting bovine animals without permission, including conduct amounting to disobedience of an order issued by a public authority, did not automatically constitute “bovine smuggling”. Such conduct could be dealt with through ordinary criminal law and did not, without more, justify preventive detention. The court had stressed that public order involved a situation beyond a mere failure of law and order and that preventive detention should be reserved for exceptionally grave cases.
Applying that reasoning, Justice Chowdhary held that Ahmed’s alleged involvement in three cases relating to transportation of bovine animals without permission was not, by itself, enough to invoke preventive detention. The court particularly noted that the District Magistrate had not recorded any subjective satisfaction showing that the alleged activities had resulted in, or had the potential to lead to, public outrage or a disturbance of public order.
“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,” the court held, finding the detention order unsustainable on that ground.
The court, however, rejected Ahmed’s argument that there was no live link between the alleged activities and the detention order. It noted that the order had been passed on March 3, 2026, while the three cases relied upon by the authorities had been registered in 2023 and 2025. The court held that the alleged activities were not so remote as to sever the proximate link required for preventive detention.
It was on the third ground that the court found a clear constitutional violation.
The record showed that through a communication dated March 3, 2026, the detaining authority had informed Ahmed that he could make a representation to the Government. However, he was not informed that he could also make a representation to the detaining authority itself.
The High Court held that this omission was not a mere procedural irregularity. It went to the constitutional safeguard contained in Article 22(5), which guarantees a detenue an effective opportunity to challenge preventive detention at the earliest stage.
Justice Chowdhary observed that the constitutional right to make a representation is meaningful only when the detenue is clearly informed of the authorities before whom the representation may be made. Since Ahmed had not been informed of his right to approach the detaining authority, the court held that the safeguard had not been strictly complied with and that the omission vitiated the detention order.
The court consequently allowed HCP No. 19/2026 and quashed detention order No. DMR/PSA/03 of 2026 dated March 3, 2026. Ahmed was directed to be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case, while the detention record was ordered to be returned to the counsel for the respondents.
The judgment was reserved on August 13, 2026 and pronounced on August 21 by Justice M A Chowdhary. It is a speaking and reportable judgment.
