The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a man accused of cattle smuggling, including bovine animals such as cows and calves.

The court upheld the detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, emphasizing that such activities disrupt public order and hurt religious sentiments.

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, presiding as a single-judge bench, remarked:

“The bovine smuggling besides being a criminal offence has the potential of creating a feeling of discontent and indignation amongst a particular community.”

The detenue, Shakeel Mohd, a resident of Jammu, was accused of habitual involvement in cattle smuggling and other violent offences, including rioting and stabbing. Acting on an order issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, Shakeel was detained under the PSA in March 2024.

Shakeel’s mother, Bano Bibi, challenged the detention order, alleging procedural lapses and arguing that the alleged offences could be addressed under ordinary criminal law. She also contended that Shakeel did not understand English, the language of the detention order, and that it was not adequately explained to him in Hindi, a prerequisite for its validity.

The Union Territory of J&K, represented by Additional Advocate General Rajesh Thappa, defended the detention, describing Shakeel as a “hardcore criminal” whose activities were prejudicial to public order. They emphasized that:

• Shakeel’s repeated offences posed a significant threat to public safety and security.
• The detention order was properly executed, with the grounds explained to Shakeel in Hindi/Dogri, a language he understood.

After considering the arguments, the court held that the detention order adhered to procedural safeguards. The detaining authority had ensured the grounds were communicated in a comprehensible language and provided the detenue with relevant documents to facilitate his representation.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1970), the court distinguished between “law and order” and “public order,” underscoring the higher threshold required for public order disturbances. The court noted:

“Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community... Disturbance of public order is distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disrupt general public tranquillity.”

Citing R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006), the court reiterated that even a single act capable of disrupting public tranquility could warrant preventive detention. Shakeel’s alleged cattle smuggling, the court observed, was deeply offensive to certain communities and had the potential to disturb communal harmony.

Highlighting the detenue’s history of offences and their impact on public order, the court concluded:

“There is no perversity in the impugned detention order.”

The habeas corpus petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Shakeel Mohd v. Union Territory of J&K [HCP No. 55/2024]
Appearances: Advocate Gagan Oswal for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Rajesh Thappa for the J&K government.