The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a 65-year-old man from Doda under the Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that allegations of bovine smuggling and cruelty, with no material showing communal tension or even a law and order problem, cannot establish a threat to public order. The detention was also faulted for non-communication of the right and time limit to represent, and for mechanical reproduction of the police dossier. [Din Mohd Wani v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors]
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jammu: Justice M A Chowdhary allowed the habeas corpus petition (HCP No. 35/2026), reserved on October 1 and pronounced on October 6, 2026, and set aside Detention Order No. PSA/02 of 2026 dated April 28, 2026, passed by the District Magistrate, Doda. The detenue was directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. The allegations in the FIRs are untested, and the Court has made no finding on their truth.
The grounds of detention
The detention rested on two FIRs registered at Police Station Doda, one under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, relating to illegal transportation of bovines and cruelty, and another under Section 299 of the BNS. It also relied on three Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) of February and March 2026.
For the detenue, Advocates N D Qazi and Amir Ajaz argued that the alleged acts had no link with public order, that the order was passed mechanically, that the DDRs were vague and repetitive, and that the grounds largely copied the police dossier. Government Advocate Adarsh Bhagat defended the order as preventive, based on past and present conduct, contending that bovine smuggling and cruelty in transport could hurt religious sentiments and lead to communal disharmony.
DDRs cannot justify detention
The Court noted that the three DDR entries, recorded within about a week, had not culminated in any criminal case and did not specify any activity said to have been carried out by the detenue. Entries of this kind cannot be a ground to detain a person, it held, and it asked why no FIR had been registered if the acts alleged were cognizable offences.
Article 22(5) and non-application of mind
The detenue was not told that he could represent to the detaining authority, or within what time. Relying on Jitendra v. District Magistrate, Barabanki, the Court held that such partial communication of the right under Article 22(5) is a defect, since the detaining authority becomes functus officio once the Government approves the order. That ground alone made the order unsustainable, it said. Relying on Jai Singh and Rajesh Vashdev Adnani, it also held that grounds which are a verbatim reproduction of the dossier show non-application of mind.
Public order and law and order
Following Hamid Mohd. and distinguishing public order from acts directed against individuals, the Court found that neither FIR alleged the transport of animals revered by a particular community, and that no incident showed communal tension or even a law and order problem. The detention order was also silent on any public order issue after the last FIR. On the State’s apprehension of communal disharmony, the Court observed:
“Communal disharmony erupts at the spur of the moment and cannot be expected at a later stage.”
The Court agreed with coordinate Bench decisions in Hamid Mohd. (HCP No. 4/2024) and Reham Ali (HCP No. 9/2026), allowed the petition and ordered the detention record returned to the respondents.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling restates that preventive detention must rest on material showing a real disturbance of public tranquillity, not on allegations of individual offences, and that the procedural safeguards of Article 22(5) must be fully communicated at the outset. The pending criminal cases, if any, will proceed on their own merits.
Case details: Din Mohd Wani v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors | HCP No. 35/2026 | Bench: Justice M A Chowdhary | Reserved on October 1, 2026; pronounced on October 6, 2026.
Appearances: Advocates N D Qazi and Amir Ajaz (for the petitioner); Government Advocate Adarsh Bhagat (for the respondents).