Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the question of whether the petitioner was associated with militants or had aided or assisted them was pending determination before the criminal court. The issue of whether he posed a security risk, which had led to his dismissal from government service, was also pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu.

The Court held that these issues could not be determined in the writ proceedings and that the petitioner could challenge his inclusion in the OGW list if he succeeded in the pending proceedings.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Farhat Ali Khanday challenging a police status report that included his name in the list of OGWs maintained by the authorities.

The petitioner submitted that he had been a government employee before adverse action was taken against him on the allegation that he was associated with militants and was an OGW.

According to him, a status report submitted by the Station House Officer, Police Station Banihal, on July 22, 2026, stated that his name had been removed from the OGW list in 2021 but was subsequently re-entered in 2022.

The petitioner was booked in FIR No. 65/2011 at Police Station Banihal under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Following investigation, a challan was presented against him before the competent court at Jammu, where the proceedings remained pending.

He further submitted that the government had terminated his services through an order dated April 8, 2026, invoking Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India on national security grounds. He had challenged the termination before the CAT, Jammu, and that challenge was also pending.

Contending that the mere pendency of a UAPA case could not justify describing him as an OGW, the petitioner argued that his continued inclusion in the list was stigmatic and carried serious civil and service consequences.

Court's Observations:

Justice Dhar noted that the petitioner did not dispute that he had been booked in a UAPA case and was facing trial before a criminal court. The petitioner had also acknowledged that his dismissal from government service under Article 311(2)(c), on the ground of national security, was under challenge before the CAT.

The Court observed that the question of whether the petitioner was an OGW and whether he had directly or indirectly aided or assisted militants was pending determination before the criminal court. Similarly, the issue of whether he posed a security risk, which had prompted his dismissal without a departmental inquiry, was pending before the CAT.

The Court held,

“These issues cannot be determined by this Court in these proceedings at this stage.”

The Court thus declined to examine the petitioner's claim independently while the proceedings bearing directly on the allegations against him and the consequential service action remained pending.

Justice Dhar further held that, as long as the petitioner continued to face trial in a case alleging involvement in offences relating to terrorist activities, and his dismissal from service on national security grounds remained in force, he could not seek removal of his name from the police-maintained OGW list.

The Court clarified that the petitioner would remain at liberty to challenge his inclusion in the list if he succeeded in the pending proceedings.

It observed,

“If and when the petitioner succeeds in aforesaid pending proceedings, he would be at liberty to challenge inclusion of his name in the list of OGWs.”

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it.

Case Title: Farhat Ali Khanday v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others


Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment