Nominal Index:Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35Gulab Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 36Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of...
Nominal Index:
Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32
Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33
UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34
Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35
Gulab Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 36
Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 37
Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary to Govt Industries Department 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 38
J&K Housing Board Vs Smt Harbans Kour 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 39
Smt. Rachna Gupta Vs Dr. Parmodh Baru 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 40
Mohd. Shafi Masi Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 41
Mohd. Jameel Vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 42
Baldev Singh Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 43
Anil Kumar Aggarwal V/s Enforcement Directorate th. its Assistant Director, Jammu 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 44
Union of India Vs Chain Singh & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 45
Amit Kumar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 46
Om Prakash Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 47
Shani Devi Vs Fr. Tomi Principal Christ School 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 48
Shabir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 49
Jagdish Kumar Vs State of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 50
UT of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Rahul Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 51
Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 52
Khursheed Ahmad Lone vs Director Social Forestry And Others 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 53
Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 54
Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55
Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56
Vijay Singh Vs Surjit Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 57
X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58
Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar Vs Abdul Qayoom 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 59
Athar Mushtaq Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 60
University of Kashmir Vs Saif-Ud-Din Mir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 61
Mohd. Mahroof Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 62
Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63
Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64
TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65
Munni Vs Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kathua 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 66
Zeenat Habib Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68
Muneeb Rasool Shenwari Vs RK Goyal & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 69
Judgments/Orders:
Case Title: Neelam Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 31
Upholding the exclusive construction rights of co-sharers in a joint property the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a co-sharer of a property who is in exclusive possession of a specific portion of the joint holding cannot be prevented from constructing on that portion.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “A co-sharer of a property, who is in exclusive possession of a joint holding, cannot be restrained from raising construction on that portion of the joint holding of which he is in exclusive possession”.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 32
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that leasehold interest in the land is an asset of the company and is capable of valuation. As such, it is to be included in the value of the assets of M/s. Jyoti Private Limited so as to determine the fair market value of shares held by the assessee as well as other shareholders.
The bench of Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta, while upholding the ITAT's order, observed that the fair market value is defined under Section 2(22B) of the Act as the price that such an asset would ordinarily fetch on sale in the open market. Therefore, for the purposes of computation of capital gain, the fair market value has to be determined, not the value of shares; the valuation of shares is to be made under Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules.
Case Title: Choudhary Piara Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 33
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that criminal courts must prioritize compensating the complainant when imposing a fine on an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for dishonoring cheques.
A bench comprising Justice M A Chowdhary stressed that for the compensatory aspect to be duly considered, the sentence imposed should align with the cheque amount, if not exceed it. This ensures that any fine imposed can be utilized to compensate the complainant, as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1973, the bench underscored.
Case Title: UT of J&K Vs Ram Rattan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 34
Dismissing a review petition filed by contractors who challenged an earlier order directing them to pay an additional sum for work they had undertaken the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that a court's power to review its judgments is not meant to serve as an appeal in disguise.
Clarifying the limitations of the court after the pronouncement of a judgment and its powers to review the same Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“The Court becomes functus officio, i.e., ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed, however, the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and the doctrine can be invoked and allowed in certain circumstances and on certain grounds only"
Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 35
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the non-disclosure of selection criteria in advance does not automatically invalidate a selection process.
The court, however, emphasized the importance of employers disclosing and notifying the selection criteria in advance. This proactive measure ensures that candidates participating in the selection process are fully aware of the yardstick that will be used to make selections.
Case Title: Gulab Singh Vs Kuldeep Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 36
The Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh High Court said that ordinarily the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court.
However clarifying the circumstances under which an appellate court can allow parties to introduce new evidence during an appeal Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“Normally an appellate court should not allow additional evidence to be produced and decide an appeal on the basis of the material on record…yet said Order 47 Rule (27) proceeds to carve out an exceptions and enumerates the circumstances in which an appellate court can permit leading of additional evidence under clause (a), (aa) or (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 27”
Case Title: Jehangir Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 37
Quashing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that a preventive detention order based on mere hunches and speculations from law enforcement authorities cannot be justified.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti emphasized,
“A dossier by the sponsoring authority for seeking preventive detention of a person if obtaining in the form of just name-calling against a given person without bearing supporting factual inputs will only lead to a detention order, if passed by the detention authority, against a person a very fragile detention order amenable to suffer quashment”.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary to Govt Industries Department.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 38
Shedding light on the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that the essential criterion for an organisation to be considered an 'industry' is the nexus between the services provided by an employee and those rendered by the institute.
Explaining the contours of the term “Industry” used in the Act Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,
“The nexus, direct or indirect between the services provided by an employee and the services rendered by the Institute is sine qua non to bring an organization within the scope of the term „industry‟ as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act”.
Case Title: J&K Housing Board Vs Smt Harbans Kour.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 39
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the purpose of a notice provision in the J&K Housing Board Act is not to dismiss lawsuits on technical grounds.
Expounding on the mandate of Section 57 of the Housing Board Act which provides for notice Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
“The purpose of giving prior notice for filing of the suit under Section 57 of the Act can never be to non-suit a litigant on technical grounds. Its purpose is only to give the Housing Board and its officers an opportunity to re-consider the legal position and to make amends and settle the claim of the proposed plaintiff so that public money and time is not wasted on unnecessary litigation”.
Case Title: Smt Rachna Gupta Vs Dr. Parmodh Baru.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 40
Making a crucial distinction between two key provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 39 Rule (7) and Order 26 Rule (9) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted that Order 39 Rule (7) primarily aims to record the existing condition of property to monitor changes or interference by parties, while Order 26 Rule (9) focuses on elucidating facts relevant to the dispute without collecting evidence for any party.
Clarifying the purpose of each provision and how it prevents misuse by parties in a lawsuit Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“It is pertinent to note here that the provisions of Order 39 Rule (7) of CPC are applicable for the disposal of an interlocutory application, whereas the provisions of Order 26 Rule (9) has its relevance on determination of the lis between the parties”
Case Title: Mohd. Shafi Masi Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 41
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that it is advisable for individuals seeking anticipatory bail to first approach their local Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
This principle ensures both justice and efficient administration of justice, a bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri emphasised.
Case Title: Mohd. Jameel Vs The State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 42
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the recovery of arms and ammunition from an accused at his instance by the Border Security Force (BSF) during a search and cordon operation does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Clarifying the scope of "police officer" under the Evidence Act and its application to the BSF's powers under the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,
“In such situation when an armed force of the Union exercising power under the Special Powers Act, 1990 in respect of disturbed area arrests a person or makes recovery of any arms and ammunition from him does not strictly act as a police officer, a term used in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act”.
Case Title: Baldev Singh Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 43
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the Jammu and Kashmir Wakfs Act, 1978 overrides all other laws when it comes to Wakf properties.
Shedding light on the status of Acts which are inconsistent with the Waqf Act Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“The Act of 1978 and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law”.
[PMLA] Charges Can't Proceed If Investigation Into Predicate Offence Is Stalled: J&K High Court
Case Title: Anil Kumar Aggarwal V/s Enforcement Directorate th. its Assistant Director, Jammu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 44
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot proceed if the investigation into the original crime (known as the predicate offence) is stalled.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified,
“Offences under PMLA are stand alone offences, yet their origin is the Scheduled offences. Once the Scheduled offence ceases to exist or is extinguished, an accused cannot be proceeded against in respect of offences under PMLA”.
Case Title: Union of India Vs Chain Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 45
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, while addressing the ramifications of the abatement of an appeal due to the demise of certain respondents, ruled that proceeding with an appeal against the surviving respondent(s) is untenable hence leading to a dismissal of the appeal in its entirety.
Spelling out the reasons for the same Justice M A Chowdhary observed,
“..The basic reason being that in the absence of the legal representatives of deceased respondent, the appellate Court cannot determine between appellant and the legal representatives anything which may affect the rights of the legal representatives”.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 46
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified the legal position regarding an accused's right to produce evidence at the stage of framing charges and ruled that an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be made by the accused even during the framing of charges if certain conditions are met.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar had said,
“An application under Section 91 CrPC at the instance of the accused would lie even at the stage of framing of charge if the accused makes out a case that there is a document or material of sterling quality lying with the I.O, but has not been submitted to the Court along with the charge-sheet and such document or material is necessary and desirable for the purposes of framing of charge”.
Case Title: Om Prakash Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 47
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a Deputy Commissioner has no power to set aside mutation orders passed by a Tehsildar, highlighting that such power is quasi-judicial and requires adherence to principles of natural justice.
Citing various provisions of the J&K Land Revenue Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,
“I am afraid, there is no such administrative power vested with the Deputy Commissioner that would give him jurisdiction to set aside the mutation orders passed by the Tehsildar. The power to attest a mutation as also the power to set aside the mutation, is quasi judicial in nature. The said power can never be termed as an administrative power of the Revenue Officer”.
Case Title: Shani Devi Vs Fr. Tomi Principal Christ School
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 48
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court clarified that under the J&K Transfer of Property Act 1977, the execution of a contract for sale or agreement to sell does not automatically transfer ownership rights to the buyer. Instead, the title remains with the seller, even if the buyer has taken possession of the property, it emphasised.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani highlighted that possession by the buyer under such agreements is permissive and does not constitute a transfer of an interest in the property. This means that until the property is registered under the Registration Act, the buyer does not acquire ownership rights, he underscored.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmad Wani Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 49
Quashing the preventive detention orders against an individual accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme targeting students the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that alleged offences of cheating under Sec 420 read with section 120-B of the IPC cannot be read to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Case Title: Jagdish Kumar Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 50
While reaffirming the fundamental principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined under Article 16(1) read with Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the onus falls upon the employee seeking parity under the "equal pay for equal work" principle to prove substantial similarity in the nature of work performed.
Case Title: UT of Jammu and Kashmir Vs Rahul Kumar.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 51
Making a significant clarification regarding the jurisdiction of Special Courts designated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court explained that Section 31 of the POCSO Act regulates the procedure followed in Special Courts but doesn't grant them independent authority to try offences not covered under the Act.
Case Title: Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 52
Emphasising the paramount importance of adhering to the principles enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution regarding public employment the jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that regular appointments to government posts cannot be made without following the proper procedure of issuing advertisements inviting applications from eligible candidates and conducting a fair selection process.
Case Title: Khursheed Ahmad Lone vs Director Social Forestry And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 53
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court held that a contract to refer disputes to the Director of the Social Forestry Department, whose findings would be final and binding constituted a valid arbitration agreement.
“A perusal of the said Clause 18, would show that it does not specifically mention that the dispute between the parties shall be referred to an arbitrator. What the aforesaid clause mentions is that the dispute shall be referred to the Director, Social Forestry Department Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar Kashmir, whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties.”
Case Title: Qadeer Hussain Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 54
Clarifying the process of disposing of case property under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasised that the authority vested in the court under this section is judicial in nature and should be exercised for valid reasons, considering the nature of the property and the evidence before the court.
Case Title: Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55
Granting bail to a woman accused of harbouring a terrorist the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that framing charges under stringent anti-terror laws is not enough to deny bail if the accused presents a case for release.
In allowing her plea for bail a Division bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan & Puneet Gupta observed,
“The framing of charge against the accused under Section 18 & 19 of the Act by itself shall not be sufficient to reject the bail to the appellant if, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the accused has otherwise made out a case for grant of bail”.
Case Title: Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a daily wage worker who renders continuous service for more than seven years cannot be classified as "casual labour" and is entitled to benefits like regularization.
Clarifying the fine between distinction between the two Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,
“Casual Labour‟ refers to labour whose employment is intermittent, sporadic or extends over short period or continued from one work to another, whereas a “daily rated worker” or “daily wager” is a person, who is engaged for rendering continuous nature of service and is paid wages on daily basis”.
Case Title: Vijay Singh Vs Surjit Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 57
Clarifying property rights of co-sharers, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a mere assertion that the property is undivided doesn't restrict a co-sharer from construction on their portion.
A bench of Justice Puneet Gupta maintained that mere raising of construction by one co-sharer in the property does not mean that the other co-sharer will lose his interest in the same because of the aforesaid fact if the property where the construction has been raised on partition otherwise falls in his share.
Case Title: X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58
Reaffirming the paramount importance of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the heinousness of the crime or other considerations, typically weighed in adult bail matters, should not influence decisions regarding juvenile bail pleas.
Case Title: Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar Vs Abdul Qayoom
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 59
Emphasising the authority of labour courts and tribunals to order reinstatement the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that when a worker's dismissal is deemed unjustified the Tribunal may by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman.
Case Title: Athar Mushtaq Khan Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 60
Safeguarding civil liberties by quashing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (PSA), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it is imperative for the Courts to meticulously scrutinize cases involving detention laws, ensuring strict adherence to procedural norms and safeguarding against governmental overreach.
Case Title: University of Kashmir Vs Saif-Ud-Din Mir
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 61
Upholding the principle of equality in a promotion case, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High ruled that an employee cannot be denied promotion benefits solely because they did not approach the court while in active service.
Case Title: Mohd. Mahroof Vs Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 62
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) constable who secured appointment in the force using fabricated documents. The court ruled that even though the constable had served for 16 years, "fraud vitiates everything," and the principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases.
Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63
Upholding the sanctity and solemnity of legal proceedings the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Jammu regarding a land mutation.
Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, a Division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh & Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits”.
Case Title: Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64
Upholding the true spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that amendments to pleadings are meant to promote justice, not hinder it.
A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has emphasised,
“The object of the Rule is that the courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side as ultimately”.
Case Title: TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65
Underscoring procedural integrity in public employment and the repercussions of backdoor appointments on the wider pool of eligible candidates the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once the initial engagement of a candidate is not by the competent authority, his services cannot be regularized.
Case Title: Munni Vs Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kathua
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 66
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sternly reprimanded a lawyer for attempting to claim a share of his client's compensation amount.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar emphatically stated,
“..The counsel cannot claim any share out of the fruits of litigation from his/her client as fee and if at all such a thing has happened, it is a case of professional misconduct on the part of the counsel. Such like conduct is not expected of a person belonging to legal profession”.
Case Title: Zeenat Habib Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 67
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court released a young woman detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) emphasising the "onus" on the government to ensure a detenue's representation reaches the Advisory Board before it confirms the detention order.
A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,
“Onus is equally upon the Government to enquire from the Divisional Commissioner/District Magistrate passing the detention order as the case may, as to whether any representation has been submitted by a detenue against his/her detention..the omission is going to be very fatal to the very validity of the preventive order even if approved and/or confirmed by the Government and/or the Advisory Board”
Case Title: Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that authorities cannot utilize grounds previously invalidated to detain an individual under preventive detention statutes.
A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized the inherent challenge of segregating the grounds of a quashed detention order from fresh grounds without delving into the subjective considerations of the Detaining Authority.
Case Title: Muneeb Rasool Shenwari Vs RK Goyal & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 69
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sharply criticized the UT administration for its unreasonable delay in releasing a detenu whose preventive detention order was quashed by the court in December 2023.
Expressing serious concern about the loss of personal liberty suffered by Shenwari the bench emphasised that the Jammu and Kashmir government must ensure "reasonable dispatch" to release detainees whose preventive detention is deemed illegal.