Mohammad Ramzan Wani v. Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 397

Abdul Ahad Bhat vs UT of J&k 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 398

District Gurdwara Parbandak Committee Jammu & Anr. v. Ranjeet Singh Tohra & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 399

New India Assurance Company Limited v. General Manager, NHPC and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 400

Union Territory through Police Station Mattan v. Ghulam Nabi Mir 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 401

Bal Krishan Pandita v. UT of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 402

Zahoora Akhter v. Union Territory of J&K and Another 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 403

Mumtaz Mehraj and Another v. UT of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 404

Abdul Hamid and Others v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 405

Shazia Kouser and Another v. UT of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw(JKL) 406

Judgments/Orders:

J&K&L High Court Directs Passport Authority To Decide 78-Year-Old Man Application Despite Police Report Citing 1988 FIR

Case Title: Mohammad Ramzan Wani v. Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 397

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directed the passport authorities to decide the application of a 78-year-old man for issuance of a passport, notwithstanding the police verification report recording his involvement in a 38-year-old FIR registered in 1988.

Business Interest Must Yield To Public Interest In Eco-Sensitive Areas: J&K&L High Court Upholds Restriction On Amusement Facilities At Park

Case Title: Abdul Ahad Bhat vs UT of J&k

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 398

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh directed the Wular Manasbal Development Authority to specify a suitable location for installation and operation of amusement facilities at Main Manasbal Park, holding that business interests must make way for public interest where the preservation of ecological balance in an eco-sensitive area is concerned.

J&K&L High Court Flags Infighting In Jammu Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Seeks Details Of District Gurdwaras

Case Title: District Gurdwara Parbandak Committee Jammu & Anr. v. Ranjeet Singh Tohra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 399

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sought management and audit details concerning every Gurdwara in Jammu district while examining a dispute among elected office-bearers of the District Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee, Jammu, after expressing serious concern that the factions were pursuing personal politics at the expense of the statutory body and the Sikh Sangat.

Insurer Not Liable For Interest, Penalty Under Employees' Compensation Act Unless Policy Specifically Covers It:J&K&L High Court

Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited v. General Manager, NHPC and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 400

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that an Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured employer in respect of interest or penalty imposed under Section 4-A of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, particularly when the terms of the insurance policy expressly exclude liability for any interest and/or penalty imposed upon the insured on account of failure to comply with the requirements of the Act.

Section 37 NDPS Act Rigours Not Applicable To Limited Cultivation Of Opium Poppy: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Union Territory through Police Station Mattan v. Ghulam Nabi Mir

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 401

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a petition filed by the Union Territory challenging the bail granted to an accused allegedly involved in cultivation of opium poppy, observing that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not applicable to the case.

Govt Empowered To Appoint Revenue Officers As Competent Authorities Under Migrant Property Act: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Bal Krishan Pandita v. UT of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 402

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh upheld the validity of Notification No. S.O. 144 of 2022 issued by the Government of J&K under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, whereby certain Revenue Authorities were nominated as Competent Authorities to issue orders and notices for eviction in respect of migrant immovable property.

Trial Court Can Consider Cancellation Of Bail Granted By High Court On Ground Of Witness Tampering: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Zahoora Akhter v. Union Territory of J&K and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 403

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a Trial Court is not precluded from considering an application for cancellation of bail merely because the bail was granted by the High Court.

Status Quo Violation Must Be Dealt Under Order 39 Rule 2(A) CPC, Not Section 164 BNSS: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mumtaz Mehraj and Another v. UT of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 404

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a violation of a Civil Court's status quo order must be dealt with under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not by resorting to proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Erroneous Exercise Of Power By Revenue Officials Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Case Without Evidence Of Corrupt Intent: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Abdul Hamid and Others v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 405

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed a criminal prosecution initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against Revenue Officers and the beneficiaries of certain mutations, holding that the mere circumstance that an order passed by a statutory authority may subsequently be considered erroneous or legally unsustainable would not, by itself, constitute criminal misconduct.

J&K&L High Court Stays FIR Against Woman Booked For Terminating Pregnancy Without Husband's Consent

Case Title: Shazia Kouser and Another v. UT of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(JKL) 406

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh stayed the investigation into an FIR registered against a woman and her sister for allegedly terminating a 4–5 month pregnancy without the husband's consent, observing that the police ought to have exercised circumspection and restraint in the matter and that the allegations did not inspire confidence.