Personal-enmity assaults are a “law and order” issue, not grounds for preventive detention: J&K High Court quashes PSA order

The petitioner, Farida Bi, wife of Mohd. Yousuf, challenged detention order No. DMP/PSA/01 of 2026 dated 27 April 2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, whereby Mohd. Yousuf was preventively detained to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order.

The detention grounds relied upon four FIRs registered in 2018, 2019, 2024 and 2026, involving allegations of assault, rioting, criminal intimidation and offences under the Arms Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petitioner contended that the incidents arose out of personal disputes, constituted—at most—breaches of law and order, and lacked any impact on public order.

It was also alleged that the grounds of detention reproduced the police dossier without independent application of mind, that translated material had not been supplied, and that the representation against detention had not been considered.

The respondents defended the detention as necessary in view of the detenue’s criminal antecedents and continuing prejudicial activities, and produced the detention record.

Whether the incidents relied upon in the detention order constituted disturbance of “public order” or merely a “law and order” problem, so as to justify preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act.

Whether the detaining authority had applied its mind independently and arrived at a legally sustainable subjective satisfaction on the basis of relevant and proximate material.

Whether the detention order was vitiated by reliance on individualised incidents arising from personal enmity, despite the availability of ordinary criminal law remedies.

The Court applied the J&K Public Safety Act principles governing preventive detention, under which detention may be ordered only where the conduct is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, not merely where it constitutes an offence or threatens law and order.

Relying on Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 INSC 788, the Court held that judicial review may examine whether the detaining authority understood the scope of its power, applied its mind to relevant circumstances, acted for the statutory purpose, relied on rationally probative material, maintained a live and proximate link between past conduct and the need for detention, and furnished precise and relevant grounds.

Under Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1966 (1) SCR 709, “law and order,” “public order” and “security of the State” are concentric spheres; an act affects public order only when it affects the community or the even tempo of public life.

Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar, (1974) 1 SCC 185 further establishes that stray and unorganised acts of theft or assault directed against individuals generally do not constitute disturbance of public order, and that preventive detention powers must be strictly confined because of their drastic nature.

The Court examined the factual basis of each FIR rather than accepting the detaining authority’s characterisation of the conduct.

The 2018 incident involved a physical altercation with a Panchayat employee arising from Panchayat-related work; the 2019 incident arose from prior enmity and resulted only in offences relating to wrongful restraint and assault; the 2024 incident involved a verbal altercation during a wedding which escalated into a fight; and the 2026 incident concerned an assault on a complainant party while travelling with luggage.

The Court found that all four incidents were individualistic and connected with personal enmity, affecting private complainants rather than the community at large.

Their repetition, without evidence of an impact on the ordinary flow of public life, did not transform them into threats to public order.

The DSP report merely stated that the detenue was repeatedly involved in crimes but supplied no particulars of any additional prejudicial activities.

The Court therefore concluded that the detaining authority had failed to appreciate the distinction between law and order and public order.

Ordinary criminal law, including the pending proceedings and the respondents’ application for cancellation of bail, was sufficient to address the alleged conduct; preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for those remedies.

The detaining authority consequently exercised the preventive-detention power beyond its lawful scope and failed to establish the requisite rational basis for detention.

Detention order No. DMP/PSA/01 of 2026 dated 27 April 2026 was quashed, and Mohd. Yousuf was directed to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.