Yearender 2024: Landmark Judgments By Jammu And Kashmir Courts

The year 2024 saw the courts in Jammu and Kashmir pronounce landmark verdicts including lifer in a high-profile Srinagar acid attack.

Srinagar:From making bureaucrats to apologize to commenting on the detentions, the J&K courts held the flag high this year too. As 2024 draws to an end, the Courts in Jammu and Kashmir have delivered some important rulings. Here are some of the game-changer judgements pronounced by the Courts in Jammu and Kashmir this year:

1. Acid Attack Verdict
On March 6 (Wednesday), a Srinagar court sentenced a convict in the 2022 Srinagar acid attack case to life imprisonment while terming the attack "brutal and inhuman act". In the judgment, the Principal District and Sessions Judge sentenced the convict Sajid Altaf Sheikh to life imprisonment and fine of Rs 40 lakh each for the offence punishable under Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and 326-A (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The attack occurred after the woman reportedly rejected Sheikh’s marriage proposal. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 40 lakh on Sheikh, while highlighting the severe physical and emotional harm inflicted on the victim, who has undergone 23 surgeries and now faces permanent disfigurement and partial blindness.

"After careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and having regard to the nature of the attack, the permanent disfigurement caused to the victim by the use of corrosive substance by the convicts in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and the impact of the disfiguration on the future life of the victim both physical and emotional, I find that the convicts do not deserve leniency and no other punishment except the maximum punishment of life imprisonment prescribed under law for their act can do the real and complete justice to the victim," the court said while pronouncing quantum of punishment two days after holding the prime accused Sajid Altaf Sheikh guilty.

2. Detention Orders Quashed
In a pivotal decision, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on March 13 (Wednesday), quashed a detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, while highlighting that preventive detention cannot be based solely on vague suspicions. While announcing the verdict on a petition filed by Jehangir Ahmad Mir, Justice Rahul Bharti emphasized the critical necessity of fact-based grounds for detention. In June 2022, the District Magistrate of Srinagar ordered the petitioner's incarceration, which he challenged in court.
According to the dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Srinagar, Mir's detention was premised on allegations of activities deemed prejudicial to the "security of the state. However, the Court found the grounds of detention deficient in factual details. As a result, Mir was ordered to be released immediately.

3. Employee Dismissal Reversed
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, On April 6 (Saturday), ruled that authorities cannot dismiss a government employee without recording valid reasons for bypassing a departmental inquiry. While allowing a petition, filed by policeman Abdul Hamid Sheikh, against the termination orders without proper process, the High Court Bench—consisting of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi—emphasized the importance of authorities following the law. The petitioner was fired from his position in 2019 due to claims that he had ties to militants. As a Personal Security Officer (PSO), he was charged with conspiring to steal firearms from other PSOs and give them to extremists.

"The satisfaction to be recorded by the competent authority that holding of inquiry is reasonably not practicable due to some reason(s) is the constitutional obligation on the part of the competent authority before dismissing or removing or reducing the delinquent employee," the court said.

4. Journalist Gets Bail
Kashmiri journalist Asif Sultan was granted bail, on May 10 (Friday), in a case dating back to 2019, where he was charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) related to a violent incident at the Srinagar Central Jail. Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Gandotra, while acknowledging the seriousness of UAPA-related allegations, ruled that invoking the lawalone does not automatically justify bail denial. "There can be no dispute that investigating allegations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is of compelling state interest. However, the mere use of this statutory provision does not automatically warrant rejection of bail applications," Judge Gandotra remarked.
Strict bail requirements, including limitations on communication and the acquisition of new mobile devices, are imposed on Asif, who has been detained since 2018 and was imprisoned earlier this year following a brief release. The case was based on claims that Asif and other prisoners attacked jail employees and set fire to the barracks. But according to his attorney, Asif wasn't there when it happened. The court determined that Asif's ongoing imprisonment was unjustified after considering the case's more than five-year delay and his prior legal disputes. After being previously arrested under the J&K Public Safety Act, Asif received the John Aubuchon Press Freedom Award in 2019 in recognition of his work as a journalist.

5. Nationalism Can't Justify Crime
On July 12, 2024, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh upheld the preventive detention of Aqib Ahmad Renzu, a former corporator of Srinagar Municipal Corporation, emphasizing that involvement in nationalist activities does not protect an individual from criminal accountability. Detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) in October 2023 following his arrest in a sexual harassment case, Renzu’s arguments for release, based on his participation in nationalist events like the "Har Ghar Tiranga" movement, were dismissed by Justice Sanjay Dhar. The Court clarified that criminal activities, particularly those threatening public order, could not be justified by past nationalist actions.
Renzu, arrested in September 2023 for charges of sexual harassment, outraging modesty, and online stalking, had challenged his detention on the grounds that the reasons were vague and unrelated to the detention. The Court, however, rejected his claims, stating that his prior actions—including filing several FIRs over a ten-year period—provided adequate grounds for his preventative detention. His habeas corpus case was dismissed when the Court confirmed that the relevant authorities had not taken into account his representation against the detention, but that his claims lacked merit.

6. Bail Granted in Fake Encounter Case
In July, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to former policeman Bansi Lal on July 3 ( Wednesday). Lal is among eight policemen accused of killing civilian Abdul Rehman Padder during a fake encounter in 2006. The accused had falsely labeled Padder as a militant. The charges against them included murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, and destruction of evidence. Justice Atul Sreedharan raised concerns over the 17-year-long delay in the trial, noting that only 28 of the 72 witnesses had been examined so far, which he deemed a violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Despite little relief through interim bail, Lal has been in judicial detention for eighteen years. On his wife's plea, the court granted him bail and mandated that he provide a Rs 50,000 personal bond.

7. Recover Jammu Youth's Body From Pakistan
In the case of Harsh Nagotra, 20, who drowned in the Chenab River on June 11, 2024, and whose body was later recovered in Pakistan, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh took suo motu cognizance on July 25, 2024.
A bench of acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajnesh Oswal issued a notice to the Union of India and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court gave a week’s time to the Deputy Solicitor General of India to provide instructions on the matter. After the youth's parents requested that their son's remains be recovered for final rites, the case was registered. The parents' plea persuaded the Court to take action, ordering the registry to file the lawsuit under the cause title "Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others," even though the initial Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was rejected.

8. One Man's Food Is Another Man's Poison
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on July 30, ruled that the promotion policyfor non-IBPS Banking Associates at Jammu and Kashmir Bank was unlawful, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The court criticized the bank’s treatment of these associates, highlighting that they were unfairly subjected to the same promotion criteria as those with fewer than seven years of service. Referring to the Roman philosopher Lucretius's adage, “One man’s food is another man’s poison,” the court emphasized the disparity in how non-IBPS associates were treated compared to their IBPS counterparts.
A Bench led by Justice Rahul Bharti, while hearing separate pleas, ordered the bank to consider non-IBPS Banking Associates with over seven years of service for promotion based on clause 5.2 of the Policy for Promotion of Workmen. The court stated that these associates could be promoted with or without a screening written test at the bank’s discretion, given the number of available promotion posts exceeds the number of eligible Banking Associates.
“It is clear as the sky that non-IBPS Banking Associates with over seven years of service aiming for promotion are different from those with less than seven years but more than three years of service,” the court said. The court criticized the bank for subjecting both groups to the same written test, originally intended for the Fast Track/Merit channel, which unfairly disadvantaged the petitioners.

9. Land Dispute: Kathjus vs Ashram
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on August 9, resolved a long-standing land dispute between the Kathju brothers and the Shri Ramakrishna Mahasammelan Ashram (SRMA) Nagadandi by directing the restoration of over 11 kanals (1.3 acres) of land in Trahpoo village to the two Kashmiri Pandit siblings. The court nullified previous proceedings based on the Ashram's claim that the land had been "religiously donated," and ordered the District Magistrate of Anantnag to reclaim and return the land to Rituraj S. Kathju and Kandarp S. Kathju is in line with the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property Act of 1997.
The Kathju brothers had claimed rightful ownership of the land, purchased by their grandfather, Kanwarlal Kathju, and later transferred to their father, Siddharth Kathju. The brothers sought to reclaim the property after migrating to Kashmir in 1990 due to the security situation. They tried to get the land transferred to their names, but the Ashram said it was a religious bequest. After a Tehsildar's assessment showed that there were no registered documents proving the Ashram's ownership, the court halted all proceedings and ordered that the land be returned to the Kathjus right away.

10. Ganderbal DC Apologizes
On August 13, Deputy Commissioner Shyambir Singh issued an unconditional apology to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Ganderbal, following a directive from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The High Court had given Singh two days to consider submitting the apology after he faced criminal contempt charges. Sincere remorse was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner in his affidavit. The affidavit also clarified that no intentional attempt was made to obstruct the legal proceedings. He also assured the court that he would not repeat similar acts in the future and that he would respect the legal system.
Singh also apologized for interfering with the legal process in a property dispute case. Contempt case had stemmed after the revenue team surveyed the judge's property without giving enough notice. After a thorough period of introspection, Singh came before the court and expressed remorse once more, which the judge acknowledged.

11. Dr Farooq Abdullah Gets Relief
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, on August 14, overturned the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) charge sheet in the money laundering case involving the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA). The charge sheet and supplemental files were dismissed after the court determined that the ED had not proven a predicate offence. The complaint has named Dr. Farooq Abdullah, the former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir and head of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC), as well as Ahsan Ahmad Mirza and Mir Manzoor Gazanfar.
Charges were brought by the ED in response to claims of financial irregularities inside the JKCA, which were based on a CBI probe into the theft of Rs 43.69 crore in BCCI monies between 2002 and 2011.

12. Rs 100 Fine on Srinagar Woman
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on August 6, imposed a Rs 100 fine on a Srinagar woman for contempt of court after she violated an undertaking to return her children to Qatar. The case began after the woman broke a promise she had made in December 2022. She was supposed to return her kids to Qatar by January 2023, but she went there by herself and left for India without telling the court that she was struggling to finish the assignment.
Despite her allegations of legal problems in Qatar, the court determined that her conduct constituted a willful obstruction of justice. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice MA Chowdhary, indicated leniency in its decision because of the woman's continuing custody dispute and her position as the children's primary caretaker. She had every chance to address the court if real problems developed, the court stressed, but she choose not to. The Rs 100 fine was imposed under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, with a warning to be more cautious in future legal commitments. Additionally, the bench ordered a reconsideration of the matter on its merits in September 2024.

13. Ayushman Bharat Yojana
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on August 30, ordered IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company to maintain its coverage under the Ayushman Bharat Yojana, despite the company’s plan to withdraw from the scheme on September 1. Following the announcement by private hospitals in the area that they would cease patient admissions due to outstanding claims totaling many crores, which had resulted in severe financial strain, this decision was pronounced by the Court. The necessity of extending the program until the insurance company and the government of Jammu and Kashmir settle their disagreement through arbitration was emphasized by Justice Rajesh Sekhri.

The court emphasized that because the contract is linked to the public interest and is also governed by the Insurance Act as such it cannot be unilaterally terminated. It granted an injunction, stating that in order to protect beneficiaries from irreversible injury, the balance of convenience supported maintaining the current system. The insurance company had previously indicated its intent to discontinue the agreement, but despite the government’s appeals, the company refused to renew the contract, prompting arbitration proceedings. The scheme, providing health insurance coverage to residents, including retired employees and their families, is intended to mitigate catastrophic health expenses in the region.

14. Women's Migrant Status
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, on November 11, ruled that Kashmiri Pandit women who fled the Valley in the 1990s due to security concerns will retain their migrant status even if they marry non-migrants. According to the HC's Bench, denying petitioners' their migrant status only because of their marital choice was unjust and discriminatory. Petitioners Seema Koul and Vishalni Koul, who had both migrated in the early 1990s, had their applications for jobs under the migrant category denied because they were married to non-migrants.

"In such a situation, to hold that the woman would lose her status as a migrant only because she, out of the natural urge of forming a family, had to marry a non-migrant on account of existing circumstances, would be grossly discriminatory and militates against the very concept of justice," a Division Bench of the High Court, consisting Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, stated in their ruling. In addition, the State's claim that the petitioners' marital status affected their employment eligibility was rejected by the Court, which upheld the petitioners' continued status as migrants. The Central Administrative Tribunal's verdict was upheld, and appointment orders were ordered to be issued within four weeks, overturning the State's position.

15. Arms Licence Scam
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has raised serious concerns about the delay in granting prosecution sanctions against bureaucrats involved in the arms licence scam, suggesting a selective approach by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The case involves the large-scale illegal issuance of arms licences by district magistrates, including IAS officers, between 2012 and 2016. The Court, led by Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Chowdhary, criticized the delay in bringing influential individuals, referred to as “big fishes,” to justice, calling it a “matter of grave concern.”

In particular, the Court highlighted the case of Kumar Rajeev Ranjan, the former District Magistrate of Kupwara, noting that despite a CBI investigation filed in 2008, no prosecution sanction had been granted. The scam, involving the illegal issuance of over 2.7 lakh arms licences, was carried out using forged documents in exchange for bribes, implicating multiple officials and intermediaries. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in the case, especially where investigations were complete, but prosecution sanctions remained pending, hinting at a potential "pick and choose" policy in granting sanctions.