The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has set aside a preventive detention order issued against a Kulgam resident, ruling that standard criminal law mechanisms are sufficient to address allegations of habitual livestock theft. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, determined that the state’s reliance on the Public Safety Act (PSA) to manage criminal activity that does not threaten the stability of the state was an unjustified exercise of executive power.

In its judgment, the Court observed that while the appellant, Tariq Ahmad Dar, had been involved in numerous criminal cases, the authorities failed to establish how these acts transcended the domain of " law and order " to become a threat to " public order ." The Court effectively quashed the detention order dated December 13, 2025 , which had been upheld by a single judge earlier in the year, and directed the immediate release of the detainee.

Distinguishing Law and Order from Public Order

The core of the legal dispute rested on the distinction between isolated criminal acts and activities that jeopardize the wider community’s sense of security. The appellant, a laborer from Kulgam, had been detained under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the Public Safety Act after being accused in 11 separate First Information Reports (FIRs) involving house trespass and the theft of cattle and sheep across the districts of Kulgam, Anantnag, and Shopian throughout 2025 .

The respondents argued that the frequency and geographical spread of these crimes created a "fear psychosis" among the local population, thereby justifying the use of preventive detention. However, the High Court rejected this assertion, noting that the statutory power to detain a person without a trial is an " exceptional measure " reserved for emergent situations where the existing legal framework is clearly inadequate.

In its reasoning, the Division Bench stated, "The material brought before the detaining authority by the District Superintendent of Police, Kulgam was not of such a nature which could have been understood and apprehended as prejudicial to the ' public order '." The Court highlighted that crimes such as theft, while undeniably disruptive to the victims and local tranquility, do not necessarily disturb the " even tempo of life " of the community at large in a way that warrants the extreme measure of preventive detention.

Procedural Scrutiny and Judicial Precedents

The Court relied on established constitutional jurisprudence, including the landmark principles set forth in cases like Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar and Arun Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal . These precedents underscore that even if criminal conduct is repeated, it remains within the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal justice system unless it promotes disharmony, communal hatred, or large-scale civil disorder.

The Bench further analyzed the application of mind by the detaining authority, noting that the appellant had been released on bail by competent courts in the criminal cases mentioned in the detention dossier . The Court noted that the authorities failed to challenge these bail orders or demonstrate that the appellant had violated the specific conditions imposed upon his release. By invoking the PSA after the criminal courts had already addressed the matter of his custody, the administration was perceived to be attempting to bypass the judicial process.

"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 ," the Court remarked. The ruling emphasized that the primary responsibility of the state, when an individual is accused of property crimes, is to ensure the effectiveness of the trial process and the robustness of the police investigation, rather than utilizing preventive detention as a substitute for criminal conviction.

Impact on Liberty and State Accountability

The judgment serves as a significant reminder that the fundamental right to personal liberty , guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution , cannot be curtailed through preventive detention without strict adherence to the law. The Court highlighted that the " subjective satisfaction " of a detaining authority is not immune from judicial review , especially when the grounds provided do not align with the criteria set by the legislature.

While the Court acknowledged the suffering of villagers whose livelihoods depend on their livestock, it stressed that this social concern must be addressed by the law-and-order machinery, specifically through stronger prosecution and, where necessary, the rigorous enforcement of bail conditions by trial courts. The Court expressed concern that if the criminal prosecution wing remains ineffective, the solution is to improve that machinery, not to rely on the "shortcut" of detention without trial.

The Bench concluded that the detention order lacked the necessary substance to satisfy the stringent requirements for depriving a citizen of their liberty. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's role as the ultimate guardian of constitutional protections against arbitrary executive action.

With the quashing of the detention order , the state is now required to process the immediate release of the appellant. As the criminal cases involving the various thefts remain pending before the respective trial courts, those matters will continue to proceed under the standard provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , ensuring that the appellant faces the regular legal process for the charges leveled against him.