New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court Thursday upheld the preventive detention of three men under the National Security Act (NSA) for alleged cattle slaughter, ruling that the act, committed during the confluence of Chaitra Navratri (a Hindu spring festival) and Eid, constituted “a threat to public order” and was not a mere “law and order” violation.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Devendra Singh-I dismissed the habeas corpus petitions filed by the detainees—Sikandar, Saiyyaj Ali, and Hasnen.
The trio was detained by the District Magistrate of Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh, in April 2025 following their arrest for allegedly slaughtering cattle in Kalpi.
“The slaughter of bovine animals by the accused on the first day of Navratri in circumstances where the cow is venerated as sacred by the Hindu community, was not merely a criminal act, it was an act that directly and foreseeably struck at the religious sentiments of a significant section of the community at a moment of heightened communal sensitivity,” the bench observed.
The high court, relying on landmark Supreme Court decisions, distinguished between disturbances to “law and order” and “public order” and noted that while every infraction of law affects order, it only becomes “a public order violation” if it disturbs the community at large and disrupts the “even tempo of life”.
The high court reiterated that detention of the three men is preventive and not punitive.
Courts do not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, but the scope for granting such relief is “necessarily confined”, the HC observed.
The court stressed that preventive detention must satisfy “strict procedural compliances” and said that the timelines under the NSA are mandatory. Testing the district magistrate’s orders against the 10-point framework laid down by the apex court in the Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and others, the bench found no procedural infirmities.
“This court therefore finds that the impugned detention orders satisfy the standards laid down in Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana, and are founded on relevant and proximate material demonstrating disturbance of public order”, it held.
It said that given the scale of recovery and the communal timing, the authority could reasonably form satisfaction that the act had wider repercussions on public order.
The court specifically noted that the incident triggered such “fear and terror” that locals in Kalpi and surrounding villages stopped leaving their cattle outside their homes.
This, coupled with the extraordinary administrative response, including riot control drills, peace committee meetings, and inter-station police deployment, evidenced a public order breakdown requiring invocation of the NSA.
Also Read: Muslims can’t use liberal arguments to justify communalism on the cow slaughter issue
Case at hand
The case emerged from March 2025 at Kotwali Kalpi under provisions of the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and the Arms Act.
The police claimed recovery of 2–3 quintals of beef, cattle found tied at the spot, knives, and other material from the accused who were allegedly slaughtering the animals in the shrubs. The district magistrate, acting under Section 3(2) of the NSA, passed detention orders in April 2025, citing apprehension of further acts if the accused were released on bail.
Section 3(2) of the NSA Act empowers the central or state government to order the detention of a person to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state, maintenance of public order, or maintenance of essential supplies and services.
The state then approved the detention within the mandatory 12-day timeline and the UP Advisory Board, which heard the detenues in person, further opined that sufficient cause existed. The state then confirmed detention for one year under Sections 12 and 13 of the NSA.
‘Law and order, not public order’
The petitioners argued that the case rested primarily on police statements. They contended that the investigation was complete and that a charge sheet had been filed, adding that they had no prior criminal history. According to them, the alleged act, even if accepted, amounted at most to a breach of law and order and did not justify invoking a preventive detention law meant for grave threats to public order.
They also argued that the detention orders were passed under the “dictation” of a local police intelligence report, showing a lack of independent application of mind by the district magistrate.
On the other hand, the state argued that the recovery was substantial, and the incident caused tension in the area. Given the religious timing and local impact, it disrupted communal harmony.
The court rejected the petitioners’ contention regarding police “dictation” noting that the intelligence report was merely one transparent component in a “layered chain of material” evaluated by the detaining authority.
The state contended that all safeguards were followed, including confirmation by the advisory board of sufficient cause.
(Edited by Shashank Kishan)