Cattle Smuggling Allegations Without Communal Tension Not Public Order Issue: J&K&L High Court Quashes Detention Of 65-Yr-Old
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Jammu has held that allegations of illegal transportation of bovines and cruelty against animals, without material showing communal tension or disturbance of law and order, cannot by themselves establish that a person poses a threat to “public order”.
The Court accordingly quashed the preventive detention of 65-year-old Din Mohd Wani under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging Detention Order issued by the District Magistrate, Doda, whereby Wani was detained to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of “public order”. The detention was based on two FIRs concerning alleged illegal transportation of bovines and cruelty against animals, besides three Daily Diary entries.
A Single Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed, “Communal disharmony erupts at the spur of the moment and cannot be expected at a later stage.”
Wani, resident of Shuryan, Doda, challenged his preventive detention, contending that the alleged bovine smuggling, illegal transportation and slaughtering activities were not connected with public order. He also argued that the detention order was mechanical, the Daily Diary entries were vague and repetitive, and the grounds of detention substantially reproduced the police dossier.
The respondents maintained that the detention was preventive and based on Wani's previous and present conduct. They argued that bovine smuggling and cruelty during transportation could hurt religious sentiments and potentially lead to communal disharmony and a breach of public order.
The detention record contained one FIR under Sections 223 BNS and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and another FIR under Section 299 BNS.
Court's Observation
The Court first found that the three Daily Diary entries had not culminated in criminal cases and did not specify any activity allegedly carried out by Wani.
It held,
“Merely recording DDRs alleging some acts, without specifying any activity allegedly carried out, cannot be the ground to detain a person.” It also questioned why an FIR had not been registered if the alleged acts constituted cognizable offences.
The Court further found that Wani had not been informed of the time within which he could make a representation against the detention before the detaining authority. Relying on Jitendra Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Barabanki (2004), it held that such omission violated the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) and rendered the detention order unsustainable.
The Court also found that the grounds of detention were almost a photocopy of the police dossier, demonstrating mechanical application of mind. It relied upon Jai Singh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) 1 SCC 561 and Rajesh Vashdev Adnani Vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 8 SCC 390 on this aspect.
On the question of public order, the Court relied upon Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors. (2024), which had considered similar allegations concerning bovine smuggling. Referring to the distinction between law and order and public order, the Court noted,
“Disturbance of Public Order is meant to be distinguished from acts directing against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility.”
Applying that principle, the Court found that the two FIRs concerning illegal transportation of bovines did not specifically allege transportation of animals revered by a particular community. More importantly, there was no material showing that the incidents had resulted in communal tension or even a law-and-order problem.
The Court therefore observed, “Since the registration of all the cases, which has been made the basis for the passing of the detention order, has neither evoked communal tension nor any problem of 'law and order', which is even far away from 'public order', is shown to have erupted.”
The Court thus allowed the petition and quashed the Detention Order. Din Mohd Wani was directed to be released forthwith, provided he was not required in any other case.
Case Title: Din Mohd Wani v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)