Cow Slaughter on Navratri-Eid: Allahabad High Court Upholds NSA Detention of 3

The Allahabad High Court today upheld the preventive detention of three men accused of illegally slaughtering cows in Jalaun on March 30, 2025, the first day of Chaitra Navratri coinciding with Eid, dismissing their habeas corpus pleas against action under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. Court noted that the timing of the incident had the potential to create inter-community tension and disturb public order.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I said, "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".

Court upheld the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun, holding that the procedural safeguards under the NSA were duly complied with and that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction could not be faulted in the facts of the case.

An FIR was lodged on March 31, 2025 at Police Station Kotwali Kalpi under Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against eight persons, including the present petitioners.

According to the prosecution, police on patrol allegedly received information that 7–8 persons were engaged in illegal cattle slaughter between fields and shrubs on March 30, 2025. The incident coincided with the first day of Chaitra Navratri and Eid.

The police claimed recovery of approximately two to three quintals of beef, knives, and other materials. One accused was apprehended at the spot, while others were named subsequently. The three petitioners, namely Sikandar, Saiyyaj Ali and Hasnen, were taken into judicial custody between March 31 and April 11, 2025.

While two of the accused were granted bail in April 2025, and the third had a bail plea pending, the District Magistrate invoked Section 3(2) of the NSA on April 25 and April 28, 2025, directing their preventive detention. The detaining authority recorded that the alleged act, carried out on a sensitive religious occasion, had created fear and communal tension in the area and had the potential to disturb public order.

The detention orders were approved by the state government within the statutory time and were referred to the U.P. Advisory Board under Section 10 of the NSA. The detenues were informed of their right to appear before the advisory board with a “next friend” and were heard in person on May 28, 2025. The board opined that sufficient cause existed for their preventive detention. The state government thereafter confirmed the detention for a period of twelve months from the date of detention.

Before the high court, the petitioners argued that they had been falsely implicated and that the matter, at best, pertained to “law and order” and not “public order.” They contended that the detention orders were passed without proper application of mind and violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. It was also submitted that the investigation had culminated in a charge sheet and that they had no prior criminal history.

The state opposed the petitions, submitting that the scale of recovery and the timing of the incident had generated communal tension and disturbed the even tempo of life in the locality.

It was argued that the detaining authority had properly considered the likelihood of the accused securing bail and engaging in prejudicial activities upon release. The state further submitted that all statutory safeguards, including communication of grounds, consideration of representations, and advisory board review, had been strictly followed.

The high court, after examining the record, held that preventive detention is preventive and not punitive in nature, and that courts do not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

Court observed that the alleged act, carried out on a day of overlapping religious significance, could not be viewed in isolation. It said that when an incident strikes at deeply held religious sentiments during a sensitive period, its ripple effect may extend far beyond the immediate spot of occurrence, disturbing the “even tempo of life” in the locality .

Emphasising the distinction between “law and order” and “public order,” the bench noted that the scale, timing and local impact of the incident were relevant in assessing whether the situation had the potential to trigger wider communal unrest. Court said that public order is affected when the community at large is put under fear or tension, not merely when an individual offence is committed.

The judges also took note of the administration’s response, observing that preventive detention is intended to forestall anticipated harm, not to punish past conduct. Where the detaining authority records satisfaction, based on material, that release on bail may lead to further prejudicial acts, the court said it would not lightly substitute its own view in habeas jurisdiction.

Finding that the procedural requirements under the NSA had been complied with and that the detention orders were based on relevant material, court declined to interfere in exercise of its habeas jurisdiction.

Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the detention orders dated April 25 and April 28, 2025, confirming the preventive detention of the petitioners for a period of one year.

Case Title: Hasnen vs. UOI and 5 others with connected matters

Judgment Date: February 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I