The main legal point established in the judgment is that activities must have the potential to disturb public order by affecting the community or public at large to be considered prejudicial to public order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged his detention ordered by the respondent No.2 vide Order No. DMR/INDEX/14 of 2023 dated 22-07-2023, whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. The subjective satisfaction drawn by respondent No.2 is founded on the grounds of detention prepared on the basis of dossier supplied by Superintendent of Police, Rajouri and served upon the detenue at the time of execution of the detention order.

3. The petitioner is shown to be involved in as many as three different FIRs registered in the years 2021 and 2022 at Police Station Rajouri. The petitioner is allegedly involved in the commission of offences under Sections 188/11 PCA. It is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is a habitual bovine smuggler involved in smuggling bovines from Rajouri District to Kashmir Valley and by his acts he is hurting the sentiments of a particular community. And his indulgence in such activities are likely to disturb the public order. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that, since the petitioner has obtained bail in all the FIRs the challans produced and pending trial before the competent Courts and the activities of the petitioner are anti-social having the tendancy of hurting the sentiments of a particular community, as such the petitioner is required to be isolated from the society so that he is prevented from indulging in such activities.

4. The impugned order of detention is challenged by the petitioner primarily on the following grounds:-

(i) That the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. The respondent No.2 has, in the order of detention, referred to alleged commission of offences and registration of three FIRs, but has not spelled out how the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of said offences has the potential of disturbing the public order. The respondent No.2 has thus failed to make a distinction between what is prejudicial to public order and what is only a problem of law and order;

(ii) That the respondent No.2 has, in the grounds of detention, mentioned that petitioner has succeeded in securing bail and on being released has indulged in criminal activities. However, the respondent No.2 has not made any mention as to whether the prosecution ever sought cancellation of bail of the petitioner on the ground that he, while being on bail in a case, has again committed the crime;

(iii) That the petitioner was not provided with the requisite material relied upon by the respondent No.2 to draw subjective satisfaction as a result whereof the petitioner was deprived of his right to make an effective representation to the Government against his detention;

5. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit of respondent No.2- District Magistrate. The plea of the petitioner is contested primarily on the ground that the consistent and persistent unlawful activity of smuggling bovines by the petitioner from District Rajouri to Kashmir Valley and hurting the sentiments of a particular religious community are good enough to bring the activities of the petitioner within the sweep of "public order". The respondents have also produced the original record to demonstrate that all the procedural requirements were duly followed while executing the order of detention.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of detention is not sustainable in law and, therefore, cannot be up-held.

7. It is true that as per the dossier supplied by the Superintendent of Police, Rajouri, the petitioner is shown to be involved in three different FIRs registered at Police Station Rajouri. The FIRs are in respect of offences under Sections 188/11 PCA. From the reading of grounds of detention, it is not discernible as to how the activities of the petitioner