The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a man booked in three cases involving unauthorised transportation of bovines and held that the detaining authority failed to consider that the animals involved were male bovine animals, including yaks, and not cows, before citing potential “communal disharmony”.Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the petitioner was not involved in the transportation of cows that are held in reverence by a particular community. The High Court noted that the detaining authority had not taken these aspects of the matter into account and exercised a “mechanical exercise of power”. In its October 22 ruling, the High Court held, “Merely because the petitioner is involved in offences relating to the transportation of bovine animals without permission is not a sufficient ground to invoke preventive detention, particularly in a case where the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority suffers from non-application of mind. The impugned order of detention becomes, therefore, unsustainable in law on this ground alone.” The order added, “It is to be noted that in all the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention, the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in transportation of male bovine animals, including yaks. Therefore, even according to the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, the petitioner has not indulged in the transportation of cows, which are held in reverence by a particular community.” Justice Sanjay Dhar said that based on a solitary incident, the detaining authority could not have concluded that normal law has not proved sufficient to deter the petitioner.Bovine smuggling: A threat to public order?The petitioner, through his wife, challenged a preventive detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Kishtwar, on February 11, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The authorities had detained him over allegations of transporting bovine animals without permission in three cases registered in 2023 and 2025. Advocate Sachin Verma, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the activities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner could not be termed prejudicial to public order. According to the counsel, merely because he was found to be involved in three instances of bovine smuggling over a period of two years, it could not be stated that he was a habitual bovine smuggler. Verma submitted that there was nothing on record to show that the alleged activities of the petitioner led to the flaring up of communal passions; as such, the detaining authority has, while passing the impugned order of detention, misused the power vested in it under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. Story continues below this adIt has also been contended that the grounds of detention have not been communicated to the petitioner in a language that he understands, nor has he been provided the translated version of the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated. Also Read | ‘Infant’s right to breastfeed’ takes priority as Rajasthan High Court stays teacher’s transferGovernment advocate Adarsh Bhagat for the state argued that the illegal transportation and smuggling of bovine animals have a high potential to inflame communal passions and trigger social unrest and that, therefore, the activities of the petitioner are capable of disturbing the tempo of life, thereby falling squarely within the ambit of public order.It was submitted that three FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and that these FIRs pertain to incidents of involvement of the petitioner in bovine smuggling. According to the detaining authority, such activities of the petitioner possess serious communal overtones and are inherently capable of generating communal discord and, as such, pose a threat to public order. Bhagat further submitted that, despite the petitioner’s repeated involvement in criminal cases and his subsequent enlargement on bail, he had continued to engage in similar unlawful activities, which shows that the ordinary criminal law had failed to achieve the desired deterrent effect. Story continues below this adAlso Read | Fake Amazon call centre case: Bombay High Court releases 2 men citing ‘illegal detention’Yaks, not cows: Court flags missing linkThe court noted that the petitioner had been discharged in two of the three cases and that the animals involved were male bovines, including yaks, not cows. It found no material to support the authorities’ apprehension of communal disharmony and held that the detention order reflected a mechanical exercise of power.Considering the material on record, the court allowed the petition, and the order of detention was quashed. The court also directed the state to release the petitioner from preventive detention forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.