Cattle Smuggling For Slaughter Has Potential To Incite Religious Hatred, Disturb Public Order: J&K&L High Court Upholds Preventive Detention

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Aslam Khan, through his father, challenging a detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the apprehension recorded by the detaining authority was neither imaginary nor irrational, particularly in view of the specific allegations of transportation of cows for slaughter. The Court observed,

“The apprehension expressed by the detaining authority cannot be termed imaginary, particularly in view of the allegation that the petitioner was transporting bovine animals, including cows, for slaughtering purposes.”

Background

The petitioner had challenged the order issued by the District Magistrate, Udhampur, placing him under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The challenge was mounted on the grounds that the detention order had been passed mechanically, without application of mind, and that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier. It was further contended that the alleged activities attributed to the petitioner did not have the potential to disturb public order and could, at best, be dealt with under the ordinary criminal law.

The petitioner also argued that the alleged incidents had neither resulted in communal tension nor caused public unrest. He questioned the legality of the detention on the ground that the relevant documents had not been supplied in a language understood by him, their contents had not been explained to him, and he had not been informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order.

Opposing the petition, the detaining authority submitted that the petitioner had established a nexus with other criminals and organised bovine-smuggling operations, thereby posing a threat to peaceful coexistence in the community. It was asserted that the alleged illegal trafficking of cattle had angered a particular segment of the population and created apprehension of a potential disturbance of public order in District Udhampur.

The respondents also pointed out that the petitioner had suffered convictions in two cases and had failed to mend his ways. They maintained that the entire material relied upon for detention had been furnished to him and explained in Urdu and Dogri, and that he had been informed of his right to make a representation.

Court's Observation

Examining the material forming the basis of the detention order, the Court noted that the grounds of detention referred to three FIRs.

All three cases are related to the transportation of bovine animals towards Kashmir for smuggling and slaughtering purposes. While one FIR had culminated in the petitioner's conviction, the challan in FIR had been presented before the competent Court. The petitioner was also convicted in another FIR.

The Court further noted that the seizure memos relating to these cases showed that the animals being transported included cows, which are held in reverence by a particular religious community.

The detaining authority had, accordingly, recorded that the alleged activities had the potential to incite religious hatred and provoke retaliatory violence, thereby jeopardising communal harmony in the area. It had also observed that the illegal cattle trade, when perceived by certain religious groups as being intended for slaughter, could offend their religious beliefs and fuel a sense of religious persecution.

Accepting the reasonableness of the apprehension in the circumstances of the case, the Court held that the alleged activities provided a reasonable basis for the detaining authority to anticipate a disturbance of public order.

The Bench observed,

“The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be said to be based on flimsy grounds nor can the same be termed as irrational.”

The Court reiterated that subjective satisfaction recorded by a detaining authority ordinarily does not fall within the scope of judicial review unless it is based on flimsy grounds or appears irrational or extraneous to the object sought to be achieved. Finding no such infirmity in the present case, it declined to interfere with the detention order.

The Court also distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, including Din Mohd Wani v. UT of J&K and Others, Makhan Lal @ Makhni v. UT of J&K and Hamid Mohd v. UT of J&K and Others. It noted that, in those cases, the bovine animals were not being transported for slaughtering purposes, whereas the present case involved specific allegations of transportation of bovine animals, including cows, for slaughter.

On the challenge concerning non-supply of documents, the Court found that the detention record established that the petitioner had been supplied 34 leaves, comprising four leaves of grounds of detention, one leaf of the PSA warrant, one leaf of the detention notice and 28 leaves containing the dossier, FIRs and other relevant documents.

The receipt executed by the petitioner showed that the contents had been explained to him in Urdu and Dogri. The executing official, PSI Ravinder Singh, had also furnished an undertaking confirming that the grounds of detention had been explained in a language understood by the petitioner.

The Court further found that the detention notice dated January 24, 2026, expressly informed the petitioner of his right to make a representation against the detention order before both the District Magistrate and the Government. It, therefore, rejected the petitioner's objections on these grounds as well.

Finding no ground to interfere with the detention order, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the preventive detention of Khan.