Manzoor Ahmad Hajam v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 407

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 408

Firdous Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 409

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Rayees Ahmad Shah 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 410

Mohd. Yousuf through his wife Farida Bi v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 411

Dawood v. Union Territory of J&K through National Investigation Agency 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 412

Firdous Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J&K and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 413

Rajeev Sharma v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 414

Dr. Surbhi Sharma v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 415

XXXX (Minor) v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 416

M/s Jai Sukrala Trading Co. v. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 417

Zahoor Ahmad Dar Vs Myomona and Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 418

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. Aijaz Ahmad Najar & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 419

Maxmed Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of J&K through Drug Inspector 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 420

Directorate of Enforcement v. Md. Saleem Khan & Others 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 421

Vikrant Kotwal v. UT of J&K & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 422

Judgments/Orders:

NDPS Accused Cannot Manufacture Medical Ground For Bail By Delaying Treatment, Refusing Consent: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Hajam v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 407

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a bail application filed on medical grounds by an accused in a commercial quantity NDPS case, holding that the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 must take precedence over the plea of prolonged incarceration, likely delay in trial, or the medical condition of the accused.

'Special Police Officers' Not Covered Under Article 311 But Entitled To Minimum Safeguards Before Disengagement: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 408

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that Special Police Officers (SPOs) engaged under Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Act, 1983, are not entitled to the full procedural safeguards available to regular police officers under Article 311 of the Constitution, but are entitled to a minimum safeguard of notice and an opportunity of reply before any stigmatic order of disengagement is passed.

Repeated Post-Release Involvement In Narcotic Offences Justifies Preventive Detention When Ordinary Law Proves Inadequate: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Firdous Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 409

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh upheld the preventive detention of a man under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, holding that repeated post-release involvement in narcotic offences justifies preventive detention when the ordinary law of the land proves inadequate.

Bail During Investigation In POCSO Case Where Child Was Assaulted By Uncle Is "Too Premature": J&K&L High Court Cancels Bail

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir v. Rayees Ahmad Shah

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 410

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh cancelled bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case, holding that the grant of bail during the investigation was "too premature" where the victim, a minor girl, was allegedly subjected to sexual violence in the house of her close relative by her own maternal uncle.

Personal-Enmity Assaults Are “Law And Order” Issue, Not Grounds For Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Yousuf through his wife Farida Bi v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 411

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a preventive detention order passed against a Poonch resident, holding that incidents arising out of personal enmity and directed against private individuals constitute a “law and order” issue and cannot, by themselves, furnish grounds for preventive detention.

Mere Membership Of Terrorist Gang Not Enough To Invoke S.20 UAPA; Prosecution Must Prove Terrorist Act: J&K&l High Court

Case Title: Dawood v. Union Territory of J&K through National Investigation Agency

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 412

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that mere membership of a terrorist gang or organisation is not sufficient to attract Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), observing that the prosecution must place material showing the accused's involvement in or indulgence in a “terrorist act” as contemplated under Section 15 of the Act.

'Preventive Detention Cannot Become Dead Letter Due To Admin Inaction': J&K&L High Court Quashes PSA Order Over Inordinate Delay

Case Title: Firdous Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 413

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh quashed a detention order passed under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, holding that the respondents had failed to explain the inordinate delay in executing the order and had not placed on record any material to substantiate their plea that the petitioner was evading execution.

J&K&L High Court Quashes Olympic Association Election, Calls Process “Sham" & Orders Fresh Polls

Case Title: Rajeev Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 414

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh declared the 2024 election of the Jammu & Kashmir Olympic Association (JKOA) null and void, holding that the election process was conducted in violation of the National Sports Development Code and directing a complete overhaul of the Association's constitution before fresh elections are held.

Female Senior Residents/Tutors Entitled To Full Pay During Maternity Leave: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Dr. Surbhi Sharma v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 415

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a female Senior Resident/Tutor is entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of maternity leave, as well as during the corresponding extension of residency necessitated by such leave.

J&K&L High Court Allows Termination Of 24-Week Pregnancy Of Minor Rape Survivor, Says Statute Cannot Override Constitutional Protection

Case Title: XXXX (Minor) v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 416

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the mere fact that a pregnancy has crossed the 24-week statutory limit cannot, in the peculiar circumstances of a case, result in denial of constitutional protection to a minor who became pregnant following sexual assault.

Order Modifying Interim Relief In Pending Writ Is Not A "Judgment" Under Clause 12 Letters Patent: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: M/s Jai Sukrala Trading Co. v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 417

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that an order modifying an interim direction in a pending writ petition, while keeping the substantive issues open for adjudication, does not constitute a “judgment” within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and is therefore not amenable to an intra-court appeal.

Continuous Cause Of Action Permits Amendment Of Plaint Without Fresh Suit: J&K&L High Court Allows Mesne Profits Claim In Ejectment Suit

Case Title: Zahoor Ahmad Dar Vs Myomona and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 418

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order allowing amendment of a plaint in an ejectment suit, holding that the Trial Court was justified in allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the trial had not commenced and the proposed amendment arose out of the same transaction and subject matter which already formed the basis of the suit.

'Perfect Compensation Is Hardly Possible': J&K&L High Court Says MACT Must Restore Accident Victim To Pre-Accident Position In Fair Manner

Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. Aijaz Ahmad Najar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 419

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that while “perfect compensation is hardly possible”, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals must bear in mind that an accident victim has committed no wrong and should, as far as money can reasonably achieve it, be restored to the position he occupied before the accident.

When Can “May” Be Read As “Shall”? J&K&L High Court Applies Purposive Interpretation To Uphold Statutory Right Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act

Case Title: Maxmed Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of J&K through Drug Inspector

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 420

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the word “may” occurring in Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 cannot be construed as conferring an unfettered discretion on the Court where such interpretation would defeat the statutory right of a person to challenge a Government Analyst's report.

Section 216 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Add Charges Without Prima Facie Material: J&K High Court Rejects ED Plea In Farooq Abdullah-JKCA Case

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Md. Saleem Khan & Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 421

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that while a party may bring to the notice of a criminal court an alleged omission in the charges, the power to alter or add charges under Section 216 CrPC ultimately rests with the Court and can be exercised only where the material on record prima facie discloses the ingredients of the proposed offence.

Prolonged Relationship With Man After Knowing He Was Already Married Creates Doubt Over 'False Promise Of Marriage' Claim: J&K&L High Court

Case Title: Vikrant Kotwal v. UT of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 422

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that where an adult woman continues a prolonged physical relationship with a man even after becoming aware of his existing marriage, such subsequent conduct may, at the stage of considering anticipatory bail, give rise to an inference that the relationship was consensual rather than based upon a misconception of fact arising from a promise of marriage.