Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: January 5 - January 11, 2026

Nominal Index:Saleema & Ors Vs UT Of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 1STATE OF J & K vs NAZIR AHMAD BHAT AND OTHERS 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 2State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Ahsan-ul-Haq Khan 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 3Lt. Col. Daljit Singh Dogra vs State of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 4Bharat Oil Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner & anr 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 5Rishi Kumar vs Chenab Valley Power Projects Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 6Sushma Devi vs State of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 7UT Of J&K Vs Bilal Ahmad Wani 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 8Judgments/Orders:Women Accused In Non-Bailable Offences Form Distinct Class; Courts Must Not Be Limited By Rigour Of S.437 CrPC: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Saleema & Ors Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 1Reaffirming that women accused of non-bailable offences constitute a distinct class deserving special judicial consideration, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted bail to three women undertrials in a murder case, holding that courts must not allow themselves to be held hostage by the rigour of Section 437 CrPC while dealing with bail pleas of women.Mere Presence In Free-Fight Not Enough To Sustain Conviction; J&K High Court Acquits Four Accused In Fatal Group Clash CaseCase-Title: STATE OF J & K vs NAZIR AHMAD BHAT AND OTHERSCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 2The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of four accused in a criminal appeal arising from a fatal free-fight between rival groups.It observed that the prosecution failed to prove common intention and specific culpability beyond reasonable doubt, especially when a majority of co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence.Sweeping Allegations On 'Bad Reputation' Without Service Record Cannot Sustain Premature Retirement Order: J&K&L High CourtCase-Title: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Ahsan-ul-Haq KhanCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 3The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a government servant cannot be prematurely retired merely on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations regarding his “bad reputation,” especially when such observations are not supported by any cogent material from the service record.J&K&L High Court Quashes Cancellation Of Land Allotted Under Erstwhile Princely-Era LawCase-Title: Lt. Col. Daljit Singh Dogra vs State of J&KCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 4The Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashed a government order cancelling the allotment of alternative land granted to a landowner in lieu of land acquired during the erstwhile princely rule, holding that the cancellation was arbitrary, legally untenable, and unsupported by record or statutory authority.GST Refund Is Vested Right, Cannot Be Limited By Retrospective Application Of 2019 Amendment: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Bharat Oil Traders v.s Assistant Commissioner & anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 5The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that the 2019 amendment to the GST law changing the limitation period for claiming refund of unutilised input tax credit cannot be applied retrospectively to deny refund claims relating to periods prior to 1 February 2019.Deputation Does Not Bar Claim For Equivalent Designation Based On Experience: J&K&L High CourtCase-Title: Rishi Kumar vs Chenab Valley Power Projects LtdCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 6The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that experience gained in the parent department cannot be excluded while determining equivalent designation in the borrowing organisation.A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani said that the stand that a deputationist cannot seek equivalent designation in the borrowing department is misconceived, palpably erroneous, unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory.Marriage Outside District Disentitles Candidate From Claiming Local Residence Preference In Public Recruitment: J&K&L High CourtCase-Title: Sushma Devi vs State of J&KCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 7The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a candidate who marries outside the concerned district cannot insist on the benefit of local residence preference in public recruitment unless such residence is established by cogent and reliable documentary evidence.Invocation Of S.67 IT Act Requires Proof Of Electronic Circulation Of Obscene Content, Not Mere Possession: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: UT Of J&K Vs Bilal Ahmad WaniCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 8Clarifying the evidentiary standards required for offences under the Information Technology Act, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that mere seizure of electronic devices or storage media is wholly insufficient to attract Section 67 of the IT Act unless the prosecution proves, through authenticated electronic evidence and admissible expert opinion, that the alleged obscene material was published or transmitted in electronic form.

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: January 5 - January 11, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags