A. Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978—Section 8(3)(b)—Validity of Detention Based on Prior Incidents—A preventive detention order can legally rely on past criminal conduct, including FIRs from 2022 and 2023, provided such incidents are not stale and maintain a live, proximate connection to the apprehension of threat to public order. (Para 13) B. Preventive Detention—Core Objective—The preventive detention framework exists not for punishing individuals for past actions, but for pre-empting future conduct that may pose a threat to public order or State security. (Para 9) C. Judicial Review—Limited Scope—The role of the judiciary is narrowly confined to assessing whether relevant material existed before the detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order. Courts are not ...

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978—Section 8—The petition challenging Detention Order No.PSA/157 dated 20.05.2025 under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, the detenue Suraj Masih contended that the detention was illegal due to lack of proper material disclosure, non-application of mind by the detaining authority, and that the alleged acts did not constitute a threat to public order—The detaining authority justified the order citing the detenue’s involvement in multiple serious criminal cases and ongoing anti-social activities posing a threat to public order—The court examined the detention records and found that the detenue was supplied with all relevant documents in a language understood by him and was informed of his right to make representation—The detention order was based on ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 17—Constitution of India—Article 14—The review petition against the judgment dated 22nd June 2021 in MA No.18/2018 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Akeel Nazir and others, the petitioners contended that the offending vehicle held a valid national permit on the date of the accident, a fact allegedly suppressed by the Insurance Company—The Court examined the issue of validity of the route permit on the date of the accident and found that the Insurance Company failed to produce adequate evidence supporting its claim regarding the permit’s validity—However, the Tribunal had relied on a verification report indicating the permit had expired prior to the accident, which was a public document presumed correct unless rebutted—The Court emphasi...

Termination—The petitioner challenged the termination communication dated 20.02.2023, whereby her contractual engagement as Anaesthetist at DRDO Hospital, Srinagar, was cancelled effective 31.12.2022, and sought reinstatement along with release of unpaid salary from July 2022 to February 2023—The petitioner’s contract, initially for one year with extensions, was terminated without prior notice or payment in lieu of notice, violating Clause (XII) of the applicable Government Order—Termination was based on a CID report alleging the petitioner’s unsuitability for government service, but no show cause notice or inquiry was conducted, breaching principles of natural justice—The court held the termination order stigmatic and unlawful, relying on Supreme Court precedent mandating opportunity of hearing before ...

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 37—A bail application under Section 483 of BNSS arising from FIR No. 61/2021 registered under Sections 8/21/29 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner was implicated based on a disclosure statement made by co-accused Naseer Ahmad Sheikh, who was caught with commercial quantity (2 kgs) of brown sugar—The petitioner was not found in possession of contraband, and his alleged involvement solely rested on the co-accused’s statement—The Court examined the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend—The Court held that the co-accused’s confessional statement implicat...

Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988—Sections 4, 5, 7—The Court held that violations of front, rear, or side setbacks are not minor and thus not compoundable under the 1998 or 2001 Regulations (Paras 34, 35, 40)—Under Regulation 7(3) of the 2001 Regulations, deemed permission is conditional, requiring adherence to setback norms; there is no provision for regularizing such violations by revised plans (Paras 19, 36, 37). The Court upheld a demolition notice dated 08.08.2016, styled as a ‘final show cause notice’, finding that statutory procedure was followed (Paras 25, 28)—It held that once a party accepts a Tribunal’s order by depositing compounding fees, they are estopped from challenging the demolition notice (Paras 29–31)—However, mere deposit of compoundin...

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978—Section 8—The petitioner challenged the preventive detention of Mufasil Ahmad Thoker under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, pursuant to order No.180/DMS/PSA/2024 dated 02.01.2024 issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian—It was contended that the grounds of detention were vague, based on stale incidents, and that full material, including translations, was not provided to enable effective representation—The petitioner further argued that he was already facing trial in FIR No. 7/2019 and thus, there was no compelling reason for his preventive detention—The Court found that the petitioner was involved in terrorist-related activities post-October 2021, after his earlier preventive detention ended—Specific allegations regarding his continued involvement in ass...

This petition challenges the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (3rd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar, directing the registration of FIR No. 32/2018 under Sections 420, 468, 471, and 120-B RPC at Police Station, Crime Branch, Kashmir—The FIR arose from an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C filed by respondents (complainants) alleging criminal conspiracy and forgery by the petitioners to unlawfully grab a rented shop in a property purchased in 1996—The complainants claimed that petitioner No.2, a tenant, conspired with petitioner No.1 and others to declare a rent deed void and forged the original sale deed by affixing signatures on documents in civil court proceedings—The trial Magistrate, after police inquiry, directed registration of the FIR—Petitioners contended that the...

The Court examined the applicability of Sections 326, 324, 325, and 341 of the Penal Code in a case involving grievous hurt caused by a human bite—It held that human teeth, being a natural part of the body, cannot be classified as dangerous or deadly weapons under Sections 324 or 326 IPC—Consequently, injuries caused by a human bite, even if grievous, attract Section 325 IPC, not Section 326 (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 29). The Court also addressed the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, emphasizing that while revisional powers are limited and do not allow re-appreciation of evidence, interference is warranted if subordinate courts have misread evidence or recorded manifestly perverse findings affected by an error of law (Paras 23, 41, 42). Further, contradictions in ocular evidence and failure o...

Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 16—The Court addressed the denial of engagement to petitioners under the Respondent-Bank’s “Absorption Policy,” despite their inclusion in the select list of casual workers—The Bank’s justification—citing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) raid, seizure of records, and pendency of criminal cases—was rejected as a non-sustainable ground, especially since the petitioners were not named as accused—Relying on Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that such denial violated principles of equality, non-discrimination, and natural justice (Paras 11, 15, 16, 24). The Court emphasized that neither the closure of the absorption policy nor ongoing investigations should impede the legitimate claims of the petitioners, particularly...