Acts Disturbed 'Even Tempo Of Life': Allahabad High Court Upholds NSA Detention Of 3 Over 'Cattle Slaughter' On Navratri-Eid Eve

The Court was further of the view that when an act deliberately committed, precise in its timing, strikes at the deepest religious sentiments of a community at its most sacred moment, it carries within it the potential to 'fracture' those bonds with "swift and devastating effect".

The court thus dismissed the three Habeas Corpus petitions filed by Sikandar, Saiyyaj Aliand Hasnen, challenging their one-year detention.

With this, the bench upheld the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun, as it noted that holding that the procedural safeguards under the NSA and the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) were duly complied with by the authorities.

Briefly put, on March 31, 2025, an FIR was lodged under various provisions of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Arms Act, against eight accused persons, including the 3 petitioners, in relation to the alleged illegal slaughter of cattle.

The prosecution alleged that about 3 quintals of beef was recovered, and cattle were found tied as well as bones/skin/weapons were also recovered. The incident, having regard to its extent and local impact, caused fear and tension in and around the area and disturbed communal harmony, thereby impacting public order, not merely law and order.

The detention orders were passed against the petitioners by the appropriate authority on the grounds that there was an apprehension that if they were released on bail, they were likely to repeat the alleged offence and vitiate the communal atmosphere.

The bench addressed the main question of whether the incident was a routine criminal infraction or a disturbance of public order.

The Court noted that the incident in Jalaun was not an isolated offence and the grounds of detention revealed a "community-wide fear and terror" (Hindi: भय व आतंक).

"This fear was not abstract or inferential, it manifested in concrete behavioural change: the general public in Kalpi town and surrounding areas stopped leaving their cattle outside their homes and stopped tying them outside, out of fear", the bench noted.

The Court also took note of the grounds which further record that the incident created a tense atmosphere between people of the Hindu and Muslim communities in the surrounding areas.

"The general public began viewing the incident as a conspiracy to cause riots and communal violence. Preparations for demonstrations had begun, and letters were submitted by social and religious organizations seeking strict action…and that there was a strong possibility of communal harmony being disturbed", the bench noted

Furthermore, the Bench highlighted the "unprecedented administrative response" necessitated by the act. It noted that the deployment of police forces from other stations, riot control drills, and the personal foot patrolling by senior officials such as the SP, CO, and SDM were seen as markers of a genuine public order breakdown.

The Court also noted that the detaining authority had used the correct legal test in this case as the District Magistrate's order specifically adverted to the "even tempo of life", translated in the grounds as “जनजीवन के सामान्य प्रवाह, सामान्य निर्वहन, सामान्य शान्ति, अमन चैन.”

The Court further noted that the timing of the act, a "double festival confluence", was qualitatively different from ordinary crimes.

It added that since the cow is venerated as sacred by the Hindu community, slaughtering bovine animals on the first day of Navratri "directly and foreseeably struck at religious sentiments" at a moment of "heightened communal sensitivity".

The bench also rejected the arguments of the petitioners that their detention was illegal as they were already in custody or granted bail in the substantive criminal case, as it underscored that preventive detention is precautionary, not punitive, and the "power of reasonable anticipation" can be exercised even if a person is seeking bail.

The Bench also noted that the statutory timelines under Sections 3, 8, 10, and 12 of the NSA were strictly complied with and that the "requisite satisfaction" was independently and lawfully reached by the authorities at each stage.

Thus, the bench dismissed the petitions.