SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the preventive detention of an Udhampur resident accused of organising bovine smuggling operations, holding that the alleged transportation of cows and other cattle for slaughter had the potential to provoke religious tensions and disturb public order.
Dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Aslam Khan through his father, Juneed Ahmed alias Janat Khan, Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that the District Magistrate, Udhampur, had sufficient grounds to order his detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA). The court observed that the apprehension of a possible disturbance to communal harmony could not be termed imaginary in view of the specific allegations against the detenue.
The judgment was pronounced on November 5, 2026.
Khan had challenged Order No. 01-PSA of 2026, dated January 24, issued by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, placing him under preventive detention to prevent activities considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Petitioner’s Case
Appearing for Khan, advocate Rajnesh Singh Parihar challenged the detention on several grounds, arguing that the District Magistrate had acted mechanically and without independently applying his mind to the material placed before him.
The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier and that the alleged activities did not constitute a threat to public order warranting preventive detention.
His counsel argued that the allegations primarily concerned bovine smuggling and could be dealt with under ordinary criminal law. Such activities, he submitted, did not necessarily disturb the tempo of public life or create public unrest.
Parihar relied upon three earlier judgments of the High Court: Din Mohd Wani versus UT of J&K and Others, decided on October 6, 2026; Makhan Lal alias Makhni versus UT of J&K, decided on February 13, 2026; and Hamid Mohd versus UT of J&K and Others, decided on August 6, 2024.
The petitioner also challenged the procedural aspects of his detention, alleging that the grounds and supporting documents had not been supplied in a language he understood or properly explained to him. He further claimed that he had not been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order before the District Magistrate and the Government.
Government’s Stand
Opposing the petition, the Union Territory administration maintained that the detention order had been passed after due examination of the police dossier and supporting material.
The authorities argued that Khan had established links with other criminals and was organising bovine smuggling operations, which had created fear among local residents and threatened peaceful coexistence in the area.
The counter-affidavit stated that the alleged illegal transportation of cattle, particularly cows, for slaughter had angered a section of the population and could generate religious animosity and communal discord.
The administration also pointed out that Khan had been convicted in two criminal cases but had shown no remorse or inclination to mend his ways, leaving the detaining authority with no alternative but to invoke preventive detention.
Rejecting the allegations of procedural irregularity, the government maintained that all relevant documents had been furnished to the detenue and that their contents had been explained to him in Urdu and Dogri. It also submitted that he had been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention.
Government Advocate Sumeet Bhatia represented the respondents.
Three FIRs Examined
Examining the grounds of detention, Justice Dhar noted that the District Magistrate had relied upon three FIRs registered against Khan.
These included FIR No. 24/2023 at Police Station Chenani, FIR No. 98/2025 at Police Station Chenani and FIR No. 110/2023 at Police Station Batote.
According to the judgment, all three cases related to the transportation of bovine animals towards Kashmir for smuggling and slaughtering purposes.
The court noted that Khan had been convicted in FIR No. 24/2023, while the challan in FIR No. 98/2025 had been presented before the competent court. He had also suffered conviction in FIR No. 110/2023.
A perusal of the seizure memos, the court said, showed that the animals included cows, which are held in reverence by a particular religious community.
The District Magistrate had recorded in the detention grounds that the alleged activities had the potential to incite religious hatred and provoke retaliatory violence, thereby threatening communal harmony.
The High Court held that, in the circumstances, the apprehension recorded by the detaining authority could not be dismissed as imaginary.
Public Order Test
The court observed that the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority was ordinarily not open to judicial review unless it was founded on flimsy grounds or appeared irrational or extraneous to the purpose of preventive detention.
“In the present case, the alleged activities of the petitioner offer a reasonable basis for the detaining authority to apprehend that the same may lead to a disturbance of public order,” Justice Dhar observed.
The court consequently rejected the argument that the allegations were confined to ordinary criminal offences and did not justify preventive detention.
It also distinguished the three judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel, observing that in those cases the bovine animals were not being transported for slaughtering purposes.
“In the present case, there are specific allegations that the petitioner was transporting bovine animals, including cows, for slaughtering purposes,” the judgment stated, holding that the legal principles laid down in those cases could not be applied to Khan’s circumstances.
Procedural Compliance
The High Court also examined the allegation that the detenue had not received the complete material relied upon by the District Magistrate.
The detention record showed that Khan had been supplied 34 leaves, comprising four leaves of grounds of detention, one leaf each of the PSA warrant and detention notice, and 28 leaves containing the police dossier, FIRs and other relevant documents.
The court further noted that the receipt executed by Khan recorded that the contents had been explained to him in Urdu and Dogri.
The executing official, PSI Ravinder Singh, had also furnished an undertaking stating that he had briefed the detenue about the grounds of detention in a language understood by him.
On the question of his right to challenge the detention, the court examined the notice dated January 24, 2026, and found that it clearly informed him of his right to submit a representation before both the District Magistrate and the Government.
The court held that these objections were contrary to the material available in the detention record.
Petition Dismissed
Concluding that there was no ground for judicial interference, Justice Dhar dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, on January 24, 2026.
“The petition lacks merit. The same is, accordingly, dismissed,” the court ruled.
The detention record was directed to be returned to the counsel representing the respondents.
