On 16th April (Thursday), the imprisonment of an individual, Sameer, under the National Security Act (NSA) was affirmed by the Allahabad High Court. He is accused of killing two calves and a cow in the forest during last year’s Holi season. A bench consisting of Justices JJ Munir and Sanjiv Kumar noted that such an act naturally provokes intense feelings and violent responses as it hurts the religious sentiments of a significant section of the populace.
“There are some issues, where the community is sensitive to the extent that if these surface, there is an inherent potentiality of creating widespread ripples in society that would affect the even tempo of life. One of them is cow slaughter. The slaughtering of a cow, whenever reported or detected, spontaneously evokes strong emotions and violent reactions for obvious injury to religious beliefs of a large section of the society. History is replete with instances of profusion of emotions and violence that an incident of this kind entails. And it is not that these are matters of historical record to be read in books or fancied about in contemporary world,” the court pronounced.
The court pointed out that no person can pretend to be unaware of the reality that cow slaughter is a serious violation of the law and firm responses to it are also documented. It stated that public order is not concerned with the motives or broken laws but the outcome of the action.
The bench reiterated that cow-slaughter has immediate and extensive social repercussions, nearly invariably resulting in widespread violence that destabilises a peaceful community. “There are a series of decisions of this court, which acknowledge the fact that cow slaughter foments communal tension, brings disharmony and results in a situation, that leads to disturbance of public order,” it highlighted.
The court determined that the petitioner’s conduct had a grave negative impact on public order and went beyond a simple violation of law and order. “One has to bear in mind that the offence committed by the petitioner was not an offence of the ordinary violent kind, that affected the life of one individual or a group of them, unconcerned with the stable life of the community, which would go on unruffled by his actions. He had committed an act that aroused public outrage amongst a large section of the population in the locale, whose religious feelings were hurt,” the judges observed.
They added that if this type of action were to recur and the Detaining Authority had confirmation that the petitioner could commit it after his release, then the locality’s regular pace of life and, more importantly, public order would undoubtedly be jeopardised.
The court mentioned, “The offence committed by the petitioner, about which we have already spoken, produces almost spontaneous violence and resentment from one section of the community and, therefore, the Detaining Authority was absolutely justified in thinking that the petitioner, upon his release from jail, could indulge in activity, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The contention to the contrary, put forward on behalf of the petitioner that there was no such possibility or no reliable material to draw that inference, is stated to be rejected under the circumstances obtaining.”
The contention whether a jailed person could be placed in preventive custody was also addressed via an earlier ruling, observing that the authority might lawfully issue a detention order against such an individual if there is a genuine chance of their release on bail and solid evidence that they will likely engage in illicit conduct after getting out.
The petitioner’s submission that the state government and the advisory board took too long to decide how to represent him against the jail sentence was also dismissed by the judges.
As a result, the court denied the habeas corpus petition contesting the incarceration, which was ordered by the District Magistrate of Shamli under section 3(3) of the NSA and later approved by the state government and concluded that the transgression clearly affected public order rather than just breaching the law.
Background of the case
A police team found the remains of calf in a field in a village in the Shamli area on 15th March 2025. The development triggered concerns among the Hindu community during the Holi festival which prompted the deployment of forces to maintain law and order. According to the police, members of Hindu organisations and local villagers gathered at the scene and chanted slogans calling for the immediate arrest of the culprits.
They reportedly blocked a road leading to traffic jam. Due to the obstruction, the route was congested for many hours after which cops were dispatched to the area to restore public order. The petitioner and his companions were detained after an inquiry, and they admitted to the crime.
During the accused’s incarceration, the police acquired information that he was actively attempting to seek release on bail. He had sent communications from jail stating that he would again carry out cow slaughter upon his release and the authorities would not be able to take any measures against him. Hence, the detaining order was issued against him.
