J&K HC Quashes PSA Detention Of Man Accused In 11 Livestock Thefts, Says His Alleged Acts Did Not Disturb Public Order

The District Magistrate, Kulgam, detained Tariq Ahmad Dar under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA), on the ground that his repeated involvement in livestock-theft and house-breaking incidents threatened public order.

The detention grounds referred to eleven FIRs concerning incidents in Kulgam, Anantnag and Shopian; Dar had been released on bail in almost all the cases, and the resulting chargesheets were pending before criminal courts.

The Writ Court dismissed his habeas corpus petition and upheld the detention order. Dar appealed, arguing, among other things, that the allegations concerned ordinary law-and-order offences rather than public disorder and that the criminal process was sufficient to address them.

Whether the alleged repeated theft and house-breaking incidents affected public order, rather than constituting breaches of ordinary law and order, so as to justify preventive detention under the PSA

Whether, in light of the pending criminal prosecutions and bail orders, preventive detention was justified when ordinary criminal law was available to address the alleged conduct

Whether the alleged failures to supply the complete detention record and communicate the grounds in a language understood by Dar vitiated the detention

Section 8(1)(a)(i), read with Section 8(3)(b) of the PSA, permits detention to prevent conduct prejudicial to public order; an offence or breach of law does not, by itself, satisfy that threshold. The distinction turns on the nature, degree and community impact of the conduct: public order is affected where the conduct disturbs the even tempo of community life, not merely where it harms individuals or causes ordinary disorder.

Preventive detention is a drastic measure, must be strictly construed, and should not be used where ordinary criminal law is sufficient; particular caution is required where the detenu has been released on bail.

Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the PSA require communication of the grounds and an effective opportunity to make a representation; the Court treated application of mind and the necessity of detention as essential safeguards.

The Court accepted that the eleven alleged incidents were serious and repetitive, but held that the material showed offences against property for which FIRs had been registered and prosecutions were pending; it did not establish the required impact on public order or community life.

Applying the distinction in Lohia, Arun Ghosh and Kuso Sah, the Court concluded that repetition and geographic spread alone did not convert the alleged conduct into public disorder. It further found that ordinary criminal-law processes were available and considered the detention an unjustified exercise of the PSA and evidence of non-application of mind.

The Court rejected the challenges concerning non-supply of records and failure to explain the grounds in Dar’s vernacular language, finding them unsupported by the detention record.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the Writ Court’s judgment, quashed detention order No. 07/DMK/PSA/2025 dated 13 December 2025, and directed the respondents to release Dar forthwith from detention in this case.