Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup: March 25 - March 31, 2024

Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

Vijay Singh Vs Surjit Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar Vs Abdul Qayoom 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

Athar Mushtaq Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

University of Kashmir Vs Saif-Ud-Din Mir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

Mohd. Mahroof Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Munni Vs Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kathua 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

Zeenat Habib Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 67

Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

Muneeb Rasool Shenwari Vs RK Goyal & Ors 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

Judgments/Orders:

[UAPA] Framing Charges By Itself Is Not Sufficient To Deny Bail: J&K High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Harboring Terrorist

Case Title: Baseerat-ul-Ain Vs NIA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 55

Granting bail to a woman accused of harbouring a terrorist the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed that framing charges under stringent anti-terror laws is not enough to deny bail if the accused presents a case for release.

In allowing her plea for bail a Division bench comprising Justices Tashi Rabstan & Puneet Gupta observed,

“The framing of charge against the accused under Section 18 & 19 of the Act by itself shall not be sufficient to reject the bail to the appellant if, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the accused has otherwise made out a case for grant of bail”.

Daily-Wager Rendering Continuous Service For Seven Years Cannot Be Classified As "Casual Labor" To Deny Regularization: J&K High Court

Case Title: Ghar Singh Vs University Of Jammu

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 56

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a daily wage worker who renders continuous service for more than seven years cannot be classified as "casual labour" and is entitled to benefits like regularization.

Clarifying the fine between distinction between the two Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“Casual Labour‟ refers to labour whose employment is intermittent, sporadic or extends over short period or continued from one work to another, whereas a “daily rated worker” or “daily wager” is a person, who is engaged for rendering continuous nature of service and is paid wages on daily basis”.

Mere Assertion That Property Is Undivided Doesn't Restrict Co-Sharer From Making Construction On Their Portion: J&K High Court

Case Title: Vijay Singh Vs Surjit Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 57

Clarifying property rights of co-sharers, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a mere assertion that the property is undivided doesn't restrict a co-sharer from construction on their portion.

A bench of Justice Puneet Gupta maintained that mere raising of construction by one co-sharer in the property does not mean that the other co-sharer will lose his interest in the same because of the aforesaid fact if the property where the construction has been raised on partition otherwise falls in his share.

Heinousness Of Crime No Consideration For Granting Bail To Juvenile Must Consider Risk Of Association With Criminals, Juvenile's Safety: J&K High Court

Case Title: X” Juvenile V/s Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 58

Reaffirming the paramount importance of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the heinousness of the crime or other considerations, typically weighed in adult bail matters, should not influence decisions regarding juvenile bail pleas.

[Industrial Disputes Act] Labour Tribunal Competent To Order Reinstatement Of Workman If Order Of Dismissal Found Unjustified: J&K High Court

Case Title: Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar Vs Abdul Qayoom

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 59

Emphasising the authority of labour courts and tribunals to order reinstatement the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that when a worker's dismissal is deemed unjustified the Tribunal may by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman.

Courts Should Meticulously Scrutinise Procedural Norms In Preventive Detention Cases, Any Deviation From Procedure Should Favour Detenue: J&K High Court

Case Title: Athar Mushtaq Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 60

Safeguarding civil liberties by quashing a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (PSA), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it is imperative for the Courts to meticulously scrutinize cases involving detention laws, ensuring strict adherence to procedural norms and safeguarding against governmental overreach.

Employee Not Approaching Court During Active Service Can't Be A Premise To Treat Similarly Situated Employees Differently, Deny Promotion: J&K High Court

Case Title: University of Kashmir Vs Saif-Ud-Din Mir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 61

Upholding the principle of equality in a promotion case, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High ruled that an employee cannot be denied promotion benefits solely because they did not approach the court while in active service.

“Fraud Vitiates Everything”: J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CRPF Personnel For Fabricated Documents Despite 16 Yrs Service

Case Title: Mohd. Mahroof Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 62

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force) constable who secured appointment in the force using fabricated documents. The court ruled that even though the constable had served for 16 years, "fraud vitiates everything," and the principles of natural justice do not apply in such cases.

Court Is Considered Place Where Truth, Justice Are Solemn Pursuits: J&K High Court Slams Litigant For Contradictory Statements, Imposes 20K Costs

Case Title: Sukhdev Singh Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 63

Upholding the sanctity and solemnity of legal proceedings the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (DC) Jammu regarding a land mutation.

Emphasizing the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings, a Division bench of Chief Justice N Kotiswar Singh & Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits”.

[O.6 R.17 CPC] Amendment Of Pleadings Are Intended To Promote Ends Of Justice, Not Defeat Them: J&K High Court

Case Title: Khazan Singh Vs Baldev Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 64

Upholding the true spirit of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that amendments to pleadings are meant to promote justice, not hinder it.

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has emphasised,

“The object of the Rule is that the courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side as ultimately”.

Backdoor Appointment Made On Minister's Recommendation: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea For Regularisation Of Employment

Case Title: TASLEEM ARIF Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 65

Underscoring procedural integrity in public employment and the repercussions of backdoor appointments on the wider pool of eligible candidates the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that once the initial engagement of a candidate is not by the competent authority, his services cannot be regularized.

'Unexpected, Amounts To Professional Misconduct': J&K High Court Reprimands Lawyer For Seeking Share From Client's Compensation Amount

Case Title: Munni Vs Presiding Officer Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Kathua

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 66

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sternly reprimanded a lawyer for attempting to claim a share of his client's compensation amount.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar emphatically stated,

“..The counsel cannot claim any share out of the fruits of litigation from his/her client as fee and if at all such a thing has happened, it is a case of professional misconduct on the part of the counsel. Such like conduct is not expected of a person belonging to legal profession”.

Govt Must Enquire Whether Representation Has Been Made Against Detention By Detenue, Any Omissions Fatal For Detention Order's Validity: J&K High Court

Case Title: Zeenat Habib Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 67

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court released a young woman detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (PSA) emphasising the "onus" on the government to ensure a detenue's representation reaches the Advisory Board before it confirms the detention order.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

“Onus is equally upon the Government to enquire from the Divisional Commissioner/District Magistrate passing the detention order as the case may, as to whether any representation has been submitted by a detenue against his/her detention..the omission is going to be very fatal to the very validity of the preventive order even if approved and/or confirmed by the Government and/or the Advisory Board”

Cannot Utilise Previously Invalidated Grounds To Detain Individual For Issuance Of Fresh Detention Order: J&K High Court

Case Title: Tajinder Singh @ Jinda Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 68

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reiterated that authorities cannot utilize grounds previously invalidated to detain an individual under preventive detention statutes.

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized the inherent challenge of segregating the grounds of a quashed detention order from fresh grounds without delving into the subjective considerations of the Detaining Authority.

J&K High Court Slams Govt For Delay In Releasing Detenues Despite Court Orders, Urges Swift Release Of Detainees In Future

Case Title: Muneeb Rasool Shenwari Vs RK Goyal & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 69

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sharply criticized the UT administration for its unreasonable delay in releasing a detenu whose preventive detention order was quashed by the court in December 2023.

Expressing serious concern about the loss of personal liberty suffered by Shenwari the bench emphasised that the Jammu and Kashmir government must ensure "reasonable dispatch" to release detainees whose preventive detention is deemed illegal.