In a significant ruling reaffirming the constitutional limits of preventive detention, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently quashed the detention of a man accused in multiple cattle transportation-related cases, holding that the extraordinary powers of preventive detention cannot be invoked merely because the authorities believe ordinary criminal law has failed to deter alleged offences.
In Reham Ali v. UT of J&K, decided on May 13, 2026, Justice Rahul Bharti held that the allegations against the detenue, even if accepted at face value, pertained to issues of “law and order” and not “public order” — a constitutionally crucial distinction that determines whether preventive detention laws may legitimately be invoked.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Reham Ali challenging his detention under Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention order, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu on October 28, 2025, alleged that Ali’s activities were “prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”
According to the police dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, Ali had been implicated in seven FIRs between 2022 and 2025. The authorities relied on these FIRs to portray him as a habitual offender involved in “bovine smuggling,” arguing that substantive criminal law had proved insufficient to restrain him.
However, the High Court noted that all seven FIRs stemmed from a common set of allegations — offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 concerning the transportation of cattle or bovine animals.
The judgment carefully dismantled the administration’s attempt to elevate these allegations into a “public order” issue warranting preventive detention. Justice Bharti observed that, at its highest, the allegations disclosed a conventional law-and-order problem capable of being addressed through the ordinary criminal justice system.
The Court stated:
“This Court has no hesitation to hold that the preventive detention of the petitioner is misconceived by reference to maintenance of Public Order as the petitioner, at the best, is a problem on the law and order side for which the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 are fully equipped if those are meant to be activated by the law and enforcement agency in realistic manner, but since the District Magistrate, Jammu has come up with a very apologetic assessment that ordinary law of the land has failed that assessment cannot form a basis for ordering preventive detention of a person to deprive him of his fundamental right of personal liberty.” (Para 13)
In a particularly sharp observation, the Court criticised the District Magistrate’s reasoning that ordinary criminal law had “failed” to curb the petitioner’s activities. The judgment held that such an assessment cannot justify suspending a person’s liberty through preventive detention.
The Court’s reasoning is significant because preventive detention jurisprudence has consistently drawn a distinction between breaches of “law and order” and disturbances affecting “public order.” While ordinary criminal offences may disrupt law and order, preventive detention is constitutionally permissible only where activities threaten the even tempo of public life or create wider societal disorder. The judgment reiterates that preventive detention cannot become a shortcut for perceived inadequacies in investigation, prosecution, or enforcement under ordinary criminal law.
The Court also took note of the procedural history of the detention. Ali had been taken into custody on November 1, 2025 and supplied with a 174-page compilation relating to his detention. By the time the petition was adjudicated, he had already undergone six months of preventive detention out of the maximum permissible period of one year.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner relied on an earlier decision of the same Bench in HCP No. 4/2024 (Hamid Mohd.), where a similar preventive detention order had been examined.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, quashing both the detention order dated October 28, 2025 and the subsequent approval/confirmation order issued by the Union Territory administration. The authorities were directed to immediately release the petitioner from District Jail Poonch or any other place of detention.
The complete order may be read below:
Related:
From Cow Slaughter to “Public Order”: Allahabad High Court’s expanding use of preventive detention
When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention
British Citizen of Indian Origin detained in India: A Legal Analysis of Dr Sangram Patil’s Detention