Preventive detention quashed for relying on concluded FIRs and failing to inform detenue of right to represent to detaining authority

The petitioner, Mohd. Manzoor, through his wife, challenged Order No. DMR/PSA/11 of 2025 dated 30 December 2025, by which the District Magistrate, Rajouri, directed his preventive detention under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent activities allegedly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The detention order relied on four FIRs concerning alleged transportation of bovine animals without valid permission: FIR Nos. 172/2022, 257/2022, 510/2025 and 559/2025.

The petitioner contended that the grounds were vague and based merely on registration of FIRs; that three cases had already resulted in conviction while the fourth remained under investigation; and that he had not been informed of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority.

The respondents defended the order on the basis of the petitioner’s repeated involvement in bovine-transportation offences and alleged threat to public order.

Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement in four cases concerning transportation of bovine animals without permission constituted sufficient material to invoke preventive detention on the ground of prejudice to the maintenance of public order?

Whether the Detaining Authority failed to arrive at a genuine and independent subjective satisfaction by relying on three cases that had already culminated in conviction and one case that was still under investigation?

Whether failure to inform the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority, in addition to the Government, violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, under which preventive detention may be ordered only where the statutory requirements concerning activities prejudicial to public order are satisfied.

It reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and cannot be invoked merely because a person is accused of ordinary penal offences; there must be a clear nexus between the alleged conduct and a real and proximate threat to public order.

Relying on Bhupinder Kumar alias Pappu Krishan Lal v. UT of J&K & Others, AIR Online 2025 J&K 499, the Court held that transportation of bovine animals without permission, or registration of an offence under Section 188 IPC, does not ipso facto amount to bovine smuggling or demonstrate disturbance of public order.

The Court further applied the requirement of genuine subjective satisfaction, requiring the Detaining Authority to consider the current status and continuing relevance of each criminal case.

Article 22(5) requires that a detenue be informed of the grounds of detention and afforded the earliest effective opportunity to make a representation; this includes clear communication of the authorities before whom representation may be made.

The Court found that the detention grounds merely referred to four FIRs alleging transportation of bovine animals without permission and did not identify any incident of public outrage, communal disturbance, or disruption of the normal tempo of life sufficient to elevate the matter from “law and order” to “public order”.

The repeated registration of cases, by itself, could not justify preventive detention.

The Court also held that the Detaining Authority had failed to account for the fact that three of the four FIRs had already culminated in conviction. Those cases could not automatically be treated as a continuing and proximate basis for predicting future prejudicial conduct without an assessment of their present relevance.

As to FIR No. 559/2025, its pendency at the investigation stage, without consideration of the material emerging from the investigation, was insufficient to establish a future threat.

The detention order therefore reflected mechanical reliance on the FIRs and non-application of mind.

Independently, the record showed that the petitioner was informed only of his right to make a representation to the Government and not of his right to approach the Detaining Authority. This omission deprived him of an effective and immediate constitutional remedy under Article 22(5).

It held that the alleged bovine-transportation offences, without material demonstrating an actual or potential disturbance of public order, did not justify preventive detention.

The Detaining Authority’s satisfaction was vitiated by failure to consider the changed status and present relevance of the relied-upon cases.

The failure to inform the detenue of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority violated Article 22(5).

The habeas corpus petition was accordingly allowed, the detention order dated 30 December 2025 was quashed, and the detenue was directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.