Recently, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh was called upon to examine the limits of preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, in a case raising serious questions about procedural delay, proportionality, and the thin line between ordinary criminal law and threats to public order. The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua.
The case arose from the preventive detention of a resident of district Poonch under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention was based on a police dossier alleging repeated involvement in cases of bovine smuggling registered under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Although the detention order had been passed earlier, it was executed after a considerable gap. The detenue was lodged in District Jail, Udhampur. The authorities claimed that all statutory formalities were complied with, including the supply of grounds of detention and intimation regarding the right to make a representation.
The Petitioner argued that offences alleged under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 were ordinary criminal offences and could not be elevated to activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order so as to justify preventive detention. The counsel further contended that there was an unexplained delay in both passing and executing the detention order, which severed the essential “live and proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the object sought to be achieved through preventive custody.
The Respondents maintained that the detenue was a habitual offender and that his repeated involvement in bovine smuggling had the potential to disturb communal harmony in the area. The counsel argued that the detention was ordered after due application of mind on the basis of the police dossier, and that all constitutional and statutory safeguards under the preventive detention law were duly followed.
The Court noted that the detention order was executed after a significant delay, for which no explanation was offered either in the detention record or in the reply filed before the Court. Importantly, there was no assertion that the detenue had absconded or avoided execution of the order.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the Court observed that preventive detention must have a live and proximate nexus with the grounds relied upon, and that undue and unexplained delay frustrates the very purpose of such detention.
The Court also found that the detention record did not disclose any specific material to show that the alleged offences had actually resulted in communal disharmony or posed an imminent threat to public order. A mere apprehension, the Court held, could not justify the invocation of extraordinary preventive powers.
On account of the unexplained delay in execution of the detention order and the absence of concrete material demonstrating a real threat to public order, the High Court quashed the preventive detention order and directed the release of the detenue from preventive custody, unless required in connection with any other case.
Case Title: Yaqoob Hussain V. UT of J&K
Case No.: HCP No. 112/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Azmat Ullah Parihar
Counsel for the Respondent: GA. Suneel Malhotra
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : twitter.com
