The Allahabad High Court dismissed three habeas corpus petitions challenging preventive detention orders passed under the National Security Act, 1980, arising out of an alleged cattle slaughter incident in Kalpi, District Jalaun, on the night of 30/31 March 2025.
The incident was alleged to have occurred on the first day of Chaitra Navratri, a day before Eid, and was stated to have triggered communal tension in the area. The detention orders dated 25 and 28 April 2025 had been passed against the detenues after two of them were granted bail and the third had a pending bail application.
A Division Bench comprising of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Devendra Singh of the Allahabad High Court held that no procedural infirmity was established in the invocation of preventive detention. The Court found that all statutory safeguards under the National Security Act including approval under Section 3(4), reporting to the Central Government under Section 3(5), communication of grounds under Section 8 read with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, reference to the Advisory Board within the stipulated period under Section 10, receipt of the Board’s report under Section 11, and confirmation of detention under Sections 12 and 13 had been complied with strictly within the prescribed timelines.
On the question of subjective satisfaction, the Court held that the detaining authority had independently arrived at its satisfaction on the basis of rationally probative material. The Bench noted that the detention orders were passed at a proximate stage following the incident, particularly when there was a real likelihood of the detenues being released on bail. The “live link” between the alleged incident and the detention was held to be intact.
The Court further observed that application of mind was evident not only at the stage of passing the detention orders, but throughout the statutory process, including consideration and rejection of representations, personal hearing before the Advisory Board, and independent reconsideration by the State Government while confirming the detention.
Addressing the principal contention that the incident amounted only to a law-and-order issue, the Bench held that the material on record justified the conclusion that public order had been affected. Applying the “even tempo of life” test laid down in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCC 98, the Court noted evidence of community-wide fear, behavioural changes across localities, the real risk of inter-community violence, and an extraordinary administrative response including riot control drills, Peace Committee meetings, and continuous field deployment by senior officers.
The Court also took note of a contemporaneous Local Intelligence Unit assessment recording that public order in the area had been “completely shattered,” and observed that the detaining authority had consciously applied the correct legal standard while recording its satisfaction.
Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587, the Bench held that no ground was made out for interference in habeas corpus jurisdiction. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that the observations made would not prejudice the merits of any other proceedings pending against the detenues.
Appearances:
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sushil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Manish Pandey, A.S.G.I., G.A.
