news details |
|
|
| High Court upholds PSA detention over repeated bovine smuggling | | From The Court | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Banihal resident under the J&K Public Safety Act, holding that repeated incidents of bovine smuggling, when coupled with apprehensions of communal tension and disturbance of public tranquility, can assume the character of a public-order problem.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Aamir Mir of Bhankoot, Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban, challenging the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Ramban, on March 30, 2026. The detention was ordered on the ground that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The detention record referred to eight FIRs registered against Mir at different police stations, including Batote, Chanderkote, Ramban, Jhajjar Kotli, Nagrota and Udhampur. The High Court noted that he had been convicted in seven of the eight cases, while in the eighth case investigation had been completed and the challan presented before the competent court.
According to the grounds of detention, despite earlier legal action, Mir allegedly continued to show an inclination towards illegal bovine-smuggling activities. The detaining authority had also referred to concerns expressed during public outreach programmes in Ramban, Chanderkote, Banihal and adjoining areas regarding the impact of such activities on communal harmony and public tranquility.
Appearing for the detenue, Advocate Qadri Towkeer Nazir argued that the allegations, even if accepted, could at best constitute a law-and-order issue and did not justify preventive detention on the ground of public order. He also questioned the alleged delay in passing the detention order and raised issues concerning the detenue’s right to make an effective representation.
The UT administration was represented by Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia.
Rejecting the plea of delay, the Court noted that the SSP Ramban had recommended preventive detention through a dossier dated March 16, 2026, while the detention order was issued on March 30. The Court held that a gap of less than two weeks was not sufficient to break the proximate link between the alleged activities of the detenue and the perceived need for preventive detention.
On the distinction between law and order and public order, the High Court observed that a solitary or a couple of bovine-smuggling incidents may not by themselves create a threat to public order. However, a series of such incidents in a particular area, accompanied by persistent concerns regarding communal peace and harmony, presents a different situation.
The Court held that the detaining authority had material before it to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the activities attributed to the petitioner had the potential to disturb public order.
Justice Dhar further observed that once the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is founded on some material, the sufficiency of that material cannot ordinarily be examined by the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.
The Court also rejected the argument that Mir had been prejudiced by not being specifically informed of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority. The record showed that he had, in fact, submitted representations to the Government, Advisory Board and the detaining authority. His representation was considered by the Government and rejected, and the decision was communicated to him.
Finding no ground to interfere with the detention order, the High Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed the challenge to Mir’s detention under the PSA. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
