Jammu And Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: May 25 - May 31, 2026

Fariz Gulzar (through father) v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 227

Arif Billa Sheikh v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 228

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naseer Ahmad Sheikh 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

Bashir Ahmad Akhoon & Anr. v. Ghulam Ahmad Malik 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Tanu Gupta & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

Pawan Kumar @Raja v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 232

Sohan Singh & Ors. v. Chuni Lal 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 233

Rameez Ahmed v. Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Jammu 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 234

Bisma Bashir v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 235

Umar Nazir Bhat v. UT of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

Judgments/Orders:

J&K&L High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Against Teen, Says JJ Act Excludes Preventive Detention Mechanisms Meant For Adults

Case Title: Fariz Gulzar (through father) v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 227

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 against a juvenile who was 16 years old at the time of the alleged activities, holding that the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 excludes the application of punitive or preventive detention mechanisms meant for adults.

UAPA Trials Cannot Linger Endlessly, Day-To-Day Hearing Mandated U/S 19 NIA Act: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Arif Billa Sheikh v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 228

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directed a Special Court to accord priority to a trial arising out of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, observing that Parliament, through Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, has specifically mandated day-to-day trials in such cases to ensure that prosecutions involving serious offences do not linger indefinitely.

Bank Can Dismiss Employee Even After Retirement If Departmental Enquiry Began During Service: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naseer Ahmad Sheikh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 229

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that disciplinary proceedings initiated against a bank employee during service can lawfully continue after his retirement and culminate in an order of dismissal if the governing service regulations so permit.

Appointment Of Commissioner Is Neither Adjudication Of Title Nor Determination Of Possession, But Mere Procedural Aid: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Bashir Ahmad Akhoon & Anr. v. Ghulam Ahmad Malik

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 230

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the appointment of a Commissioner does not amount to adjudication of title or determination of possession and is merely a procedural mechanism intended to assist the court in resolving disputed factual issues.

Motherhood Cannot Become Grounds For Economic Disadvantage: J&K&L High Court Upholds Maternity Leave Period As Continuous Service

Case Title: Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Tanu Gupta & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 231

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed intra-court appeals filed by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. against a single bench judgment directing the Bank to treat maternity leave period as continuous service for regularisation of female Banking Associates.

POCSO Case Can't Be Closed Merely Because DNA Excludes Accused As Child's Father: J&K&L High Court Orders SIT Probe

Case Title: Pawan Kumar @Raja v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 232

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court refused to quash an FIR registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a petitioner, even though a DNA report excluded him as the biological father of the child born to the minor victim.

Omission Of S.19(3) Of Agrarian Reforms Act Revived Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Possession-Based Injunction Suits: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Sohan Singh & Ors. v. Chuni Lal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 233

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a civil suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to protect possession over land remains maintainable before a civil court notwithstanding the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, observing that the omission of Section 19(3) from the statute has substantially altered the legal position governing jurisdictional objections in such matters.

NDPS Act | Section 52A Lapses Alone Cannot Vitiate Prosecution Or Render Evidence Inadmissible: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Rameez Ahmed v. Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Jammu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 234

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that infractions relating to Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot, by themselves, nullify a prosecution under the NDPS Act, observing that the provision is intended primarily for safe disposal of seized narcotic substances and that procedural lapses must be assessed in the context of the overall evidence available on record.

Selected Candidate's Removal Over Fake Certificate Won't Revive Waiting List: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Bisma Bashir v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 235

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to operate the waiting list for the post of Messieurs (female) after the initially selected candidate was disengaged on account of her 12th pass qualification certificate being found to have been issued by an unrecognized institution.

Alleged Role In Enforcing 2015 Kashmir Bandh Too Remote To Justify 2022 Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Umar Nazir Bhat v. UT of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that allegations relating to a person's involvement in enforcing hartal and bandh calls in Kashmir cannot justify preventive detention years later in the absence of any proximate material linking such activities to the detention order.