Repeated similar offences affecting community peace can justify preventive detention for public order.

The petitioner-detenue challenged Detention Order No. 07/DMK/PSA/2025 dated 13 December 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, directing his preventive detention to prevent acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The detention grounds referred to eleven FIRs alleging offences relating to theft of livestock/cattle under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; charge-sheets had been filed and the detenue had been released on bail in the cases.

The petitioner contended that the alleged conduct concerned, at most, ordinary law and order; that the bail orders relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied; and that the grounds, prepared in English, had not been translated into a language understood by him, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Public Safety Act.

The respondents maintained that the authority had independently considered the material, that the relevant documents had been supplied and explained to the detenue, and that the bail orders were referred to only to indicate the status of the criminal cases.

Whether the detention order was based on relevant material demonstrating activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or whether the allegations constituted only ordinary law-and-order violations capable of being addressed through criminal proceedings?

Whether non-supply of the bail orders invalidated the detention order by depriving the detenue of an effective opportunity to make a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Public Safety Act?

Whether furnishing the grounds of detention in English, without supplying a translated copy, violated the detenue’s constitutional and statutory rights when the grounds were allegedly explained to him in a language understood by him?

Preventive detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, is an exceptional and preventive measure, and must comply strictly with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Act.

Judicial review is limited to examining whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is founded on relevant material and whether constitutional and statutory safeguards have been complied with; the Court cannot reassess the sufficiency of the material or substitute its own satisfaction.

Preventive detention may be ordered notwithstanding pending criminal proceedings where the antecedent conduct and its continuing tendency provide a rational basis for apprehending prejudicial activities.

The distinction between “law and order” and “public order” depends on the nature, frequency, continuity and impact of the conduct on the even tempo of public life, rather than merely on the nomenclature of the offence.

Material relied upon by the detaining authority must ordinarily be supplied to enable an effective representation, but a document not constituting independent foundational material will not necessarily invalidate detention if its substance and effect are disclosed in the grounds.

Article 22(5) requires effective communication of the grounds in a language understood by the detenue; however, compliance may be established through contemporaneous material showing that the detenue understood the grounds and was able to make an effective representation. The Court relied on Sarfaraz Alam v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 18, in this regard.

The Court held that the detaining authority had not relied on an isolated incident but had considered eleven FIRs involving similar allegations of livestock/cattle theft, together with the filing of charge-sheets and the detenue’s release on bail.

The repeated and continuing nature of the alleged conduct was treated as relevant material supporting the apprehension of recurrence and the conclusion that the activities could disturb public order; the Court therefore declined to substitute its assessment for that of the detaining authority.

The challenge based on non-supply of bail orders failed because the grounds expressly disclosed that the detenue had been granted bail, and the bail orders were not shown to constitute independent foundational material.

On the language issue, the Court accepted the respondents’ position that the detention order and grounds had been explained to the detenue in a language understood by him and that he had been informed of his right to make a representation.

In the absence of proof that any specific material remained incomprehensible or that actual prejudice was caused, the preparation of the original grounds in English was held insufficient to invalidate the detention.

The Court consequently found no reliance on irrelevant or extraneous considerations and no constitutional or statutory infirmity in the detention order.

The habeas corpus petition and pending application were dismissed, the detention order was upheld, and the scanned detention record was directed to be returned through counsel for the respondents.