Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 11 - May 17, 2026

Nominal Index:Vilayat Aziz Mir v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 195Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh Vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 196Darshan Singh @ Deepu v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 197Manish Kumar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 198Aultaf Ahmad Shah v. J&K Bank Ltd. & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 199Rouf Ahmad Mir & Ors Vs Adfara Rahman 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 200Basharat Ahmad Abbasi Alias Bashir And Another v. UT of J&K And Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 201Jahangir Ahmad Parray v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 202Mohammad Amin Rather And Others v. UT of J&K And Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 203Shagun Chandel (wife of detenu Nisar Ahmad) v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 204Syed Irfan Ahmad v. NIA Jammu 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 205Mushtaq Ahmad Malik v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 206Hajira v. J&K Special Tribunal & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 207Pushap Kumar Tickoo & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 208Dr. Abdul Majeed Bhat v. Union Territory of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 209Judgments/Orders:Age No Ground For Leniency When Activities Pose Threat: J&K&L HC Upholds Detention Of 18-Yr-Old Over Alleged Involvement In Terror AttackCase Title: Vilayat Aziz Mir v. UT of J&K & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 195The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by an 18-year-old detenue held under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that his age cannot be treated as a ground for leniency when his alleged activities pose a potential risk to the security of the Union Territory.Preventive Measures Causing Restraint Do Not Amount To Punishment; Objective Only To Prevent Future Acts: J&K&L High CourtCause Title: Mohammad Ashraf Sheikh Vs Union Territory of J&K & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 196The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not partake of the nature of punishment. The Court ruled that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and prevent him from doing so, and that those responsible for national security or maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what such security or order requires.Small Recoveries In FIRs Without Final Report Can't Establish “Continuous Drug Peddling” For Preventive Detention: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Darshan Singh @ Deepu v. UT of J&K & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 197The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that where a detenue was implicated in FIRs involving alleged recovery of small quantities of heroin and both cases were still under investigation, the detaining authority could not conclude that the detenue was engaged in “continuous illegal activities of drug peddling” to justify preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.Mere Rejection Of Representation Does Not Give Fresh Cause Of Action In Service Matters: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Manish Kumar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 198The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that filing of repeated representations to the department cannot cure delay and laches in filing a writ petition, and that a reply rejecting such a representation does not furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.Employee's Suspension Period May Be Excluded Only For Calculating Back Wages, Not Promotion Or Seniority: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Aultaf Ahmad Shah v. J&K Bank Ltd. & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 199The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that where a disciplinary authority directs that the period of suspension undergone by an employee would qualify for leave, increments and retirement benefits, such period must necessarily count towards the employee's regular service as well.Only Prima Facie Satisfaction Required U/S 23 Domestic Violence Act; Meticulous Evidence Analysis To Be Avoided: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Rouf Ahmad Mir & Ors Vs Adfara RahmanCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 200The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that at the time of considering an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the standard of proof is only prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding the existence of a domestic relationship and the likelihood of domestic violence, and a meticulous analysis of the evidence on record has to be avoided at this stage.Dying Declaration Recorded Minutes Before Death Is Substantial Evidence; Minor Contradictions Cannot Be Scrutinised At Bail Stage: J&K&L HCCase Title: Basharat Ahmad Abbasi Alias Bashir And Another v. UT of J&K And OthersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 201The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a dying declaration recorded on a mobile phone minutes before the death of the deceased, which has...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 11 - May 17, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 11 - May 17, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers