The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a man accused in 11 cases involving alleged cattle and sheep thefts, holding that the alleged offences did not meet the threshold of disturbing public order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani passed the order while allowing an appeal against a Single Judge’s decision upholding his detention.
Accused had been detained under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the PSA through an order passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam, on December 13, 2025. His challenge was dismissed by the Single Judge on September 25, 2026. Before the Division Bench, his counsel argued that the cases concerned ordinary law-and-order offences, that chargesheets had already been filed and that the accused had been granted bail in the criminal cases. The State, however, submitted that the repeated incidents across Kulgam, Anantnag and Shopian had created fear among local residents and justified preventive detention.
The Bench drew a distinction between a breach of law and order and conduct that disturbs public order, observing that the latter requires an impact extending beyond individual offences to the wider community. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1966 AIR (SC) 740, the Court reiterated that every breach of peace does not amount to public disorder. It held:
“
“The alleged actions of the appellant/detenue no doubt amount to infraction of laws for which legal mechanism in place was already pressed into service. The invocation of the provisions of the PSA to detain the appellant rather than to pursue the prosecution against him appears to be an unjustified exercise and abuse of process of law. Under these circumstances the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority becomes explicit.”
The Bench further held that the ordinary criminal law machinery was sufficient to deal with the allegations and that preventive detention could not be used as a substitute for prosecution. It also emphasised that such detention must be ordered with “great care and caution”, given that it curtails the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Setting aside the Single Judge’s judgment, the High Court quashed the detention order and directed the authorities to release the appellant forthwith from detention in the case.
