The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a man from Rajouri, ruling that allegations of transporting bovine animals without permission were, by themselves, not enough to invoke the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA).
The court also found that authorities had violated the detainee’s constitutional right to make an effective representation by failing to inform him that he could approach the detaining authority against the detention order.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the judgment on August 21, 2026, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Sabeer Ahmed, son of Bashir Ahmed of Bakhar in Rajouri’s Siot tehsil.
Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order
Ahmed had been detained under an order issued by the District Magistrate, Rajouri, on March 3, 2026, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
The authorities relied on three FIRs registered against him in 2023 and 2025. The cases involved allegations of transporting bovine animals without valid permission from the District Magistrate.
The government argued that the cases showed Ahmed’s continued involvement in criminal and anti-social activities and that ordinary criminal proceedings were not sufficient to prevent him from allegedly disturbing public order.
However, Ahmed challenged the detention, arguing that the FIRs did not establish any conduct that could be considered prejudicial to public order.
‘Not Sufficient’ To Invoke PSA
The High Court referred to an earlier judgment concerning similar allegations of transporting bovine animals without permission.
The court noted that such conduct could be dealt with under ordinary criminal law and could not automatically be treated as an activity threatening public order.
“Merely because the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the offences relating to transportation of bovine animals without permission is not a sufficient ground to invoke the remedy of preventive detention,” the court held.
Justice Chowdhary further observed that the detention record did not show that Ahmed’s alleged activities had resulted in public outrage or had the potential to disturb public order.
The court therefore found the detention order unsustainable on this ground.
Authorities Violated Right To Representation
The High Court also found a separate violation of Ahmed’s constitutional rights.
The detention communication informed him that he could make a representation to the government. However, it did not tell him that he could also submit a representation to the detaining authority.
The court said this was important because Article 22(5) of the Constitution provides a detenue with an opportunity to make an effective representation against preventive detention.
The omission, the court held, was not merely a technical or procedural error. Since Ahmed had not been informed about his right to approach the detaining authority, the constitutional safeguard had not been properly followed.
Court Orders Ahmed’s Release
The court rejected Ahmed’s argument that the detention order had been passed too long after the FIRs to maintain a live link between the alleged activities and the detention. It noted that the cases from 2023 and 2025 were not so remote as to completely break that link.
However, considering the lack of sufficient grounds for invoking the PSA and the violation of his right to make an effective representation, the High Court quashed the detention order.
The court directed that Sabeer Ahmed be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The detention record was also ordered to be returned to the authorities’ counsel.
