The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ordered Maruti Suzuki and its dealer to provide a compensation of ₹1.65 lakh to a customer who was sold a defective vehicle and subjected to continuous harassment during the warranty period.

The petitioner had purchased the car in 2014 and soon after the purchase, the car developed technical defects. It had to be serviced eighteen times within a span of two years. Aggrieved by the orders of the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions, he moved to the High Court.

The Court, keeping in mind the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant, found the orders of the Consumer forums to be inadequate.

[Arun Tandon vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.]

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a dealership agreement and a lease agreement are distinct and separate contracts.

The court ruled that termination of a dealership does not automatically terminate the lease for the premises from which the business operated.

This judgment came in a case where Indian Oil terminated a dealership but also sought to evict the dealer from the leased property.

The court stated that the rights and obligations under each contract must be enforced independently, and the eviction would require separate legal proceedings under tenancy laws.

[Chairman Indian Oil Corporation v Zareena Akhter]

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has observed that the better financial condition of the father cannot be a ground to deem the mother unfit for the custody of the child. 

It was further noted that the financial condition does not outweigh other factors such as emotional value and continuity of care for the children. It also expanded the meaning of the term 'welfare' to include not only physical but also moral welfare of the minor.

Many other Courts in India have noted the indispensable role of a mother in the life of a child, unless the conduct of the mother is proved to directly harm the child.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has disposed of a PIL filed since 2020 by the Young Lawyers Forum seeking enforcement of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act in the Union Territory. 

The Court noted the government’s submission that draft RTE Rules have been prepared and published for public comments, with a timeline for final notification.

The petitioner agreed to close the case but reserved the right to revive it if the government fails to notify or implement the rules.

[Young Lawyers Forum v UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable who failed to report to duty, citing threats from militants as the reason.

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal stated that a police officer “cannot be expected to protect life and property” if he avoids duty due to threats. 

The constable, who joined in 1987, went on extended leave in 1990 and never returned despite multiple notices. 

The constables' plea for reinstatement, rejected earlier by authorities and the tribunal, was found meritless by the High Court.

The J&K High Court upheld the dismissal of a CRPF personnel for misuse of arms, clarifying that Rule 27(ccc) of the CRPF Rules,1955 does not apply when departmental and criminal proceedings differ in charges.

The court held that an acquittal in a murder trial does not protect against disciplinary action for separate misconduct.

It added that appointing a Presenting Officer is not mandatory, and absence alone does not invalidate an inquiry unless the Enquiry Officer acts as prosecutor.

Finding the inquiry fair, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh upheld the preventive detention of Rajouri resident Mohd Shakoor, accused of repeated drug trafficking, while dismissing a habeas corpus plea filed by his wife.

Justice MA Chowdhary ruled on August 19 that it is the impact of an act, not its frequency, that justifies preventive detention.

The Court found no procedural lapses in the Divisional Commissioner’s order under the NDPS Act, 1988, and stressed that Shakoor’s involvement in drug trafficking posed grave threats to public health, youth, and national security.

It emphasised that preventive detention is precautionary, aimed at stopping irreversible harm to society.

(Mohd Shakoor through his wife vs Union Territory of J&K)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh issued notice on a PIL filed by Advocate Mir Umar, highlighting the unchecked sale of rotten and unhygienic meat and poultry in the Union Territory.

The petition accused authorities of negligent enforcement of food safety and municipal laws, citing a local exposé titled “Meet the Meat Mafia” that revealed a cartel supplying unsafe meat in Kashmir.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli directed the Commissioner of Food Safety be added as a respondent.

The court granted time for the respondents to file their objections and scheduled the next hearing for August 25, 2025.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a petition to quash an FIR against a man accused of issuing instant triple talaq to his wife via text message under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

Justice Javed Wani held that an instant and irrevocable Talaq, whether spoken, written, or electronic, is void and punishable with up to three years imprisonment and a fine.

The petitioner argued he lawfully divorced his wife through Talaq-e-Ahsan via a formal Talaq Nama, but the Court found this insufficient against evidence of text messages.

The dismissal did not affect the accused’s guilt or innocence.

[Shabir Ahmad Malik v UT of J&K]

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has issued a directive mandating all officers, officials, and staff members to adhere to the prescribed uniform while attending office and performing official duties.

Registrar General (Officiating) MK Sharma noted that several employees were reporting to work in casual attire, leading to indiscipline and affecting the smooth functioning of the High Court.

The circular, dated August 12, specifies that this dress code applies to both gazetted and non-gazetted employees, including personal staff attached to registry officers, e-courts, IT sections, orderlies, ushers, and drivers.

Non-compliance will be viewed seriously and may invite disciplinary action. Controlling officers have been directed to ensure strict implementation of the uniform rules.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the mandatory procurement preference for Micro & Small Enterprises (MSEs) under public tenders does not apply to composite "Supply, Installation, and Testing" (SIT) contracts.

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging tender conditions on the ground of non-compliance with the MSE procurement mandate, holding that while the policy provisions enjoy statutory backing under the MSMED Act, their application is systemic rather than contract-specific.

The Court clarified that MSE benefits are limited to pure goods supply contracts, not bundled service agreements.

The verdict came in a challenge against a J&K government tender, where bidders argued for MSE quota enforcement. 

[Zain Electricals, Industrial Estate v Jammu & Kashmir]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that holding an arms licence is not a fundamental right and that public safety prevails over an individual’s privilege to carry firearms.

The Court upheld the cancellation of DDC member Wajid Bashir Khan’s arms licence for allegedly brandishing his licensed pistol to threaten government officers during an anti-encroachment drive.

The Court said Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act allows revocation to protect public peace and safety, and a prior hearing is not mandatory in urgent threats.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man who had been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for affixing posters that threatened panchayat members to resign or face serious consequences.

The court, comprising Justices Sanjay Parihar and Sanjeev Kumar, ruled that such intimidation does not constitute an “unlawful activity” under Section 13 of the UAPA, as it neither advocates the secession of territory nor undermines India's sovereignty or integrity.

Consequently, the court dismissed the J&K Police’s appeal against the acquittal by the NIA court. 

[UT of J&K Through SHO P/S Srigufwara vs. Gh. Mohd Lone]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that state-funded projects on government-owned land do not require prior consultation with Halqa Panchayats.

The case involved issuing tenders for veterinary and sheep extension centers on land classified as “Sarkar” (state-owned). The bench noted that, while local participation is important, the Panchayati Raj Act does not explicitly mandate consultation in such cases.

Referring to Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan and Prithpal Singh v. State of J&K, the Court clarified that decentralisation principles must align with statutory and technical requirements.

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim, stating that a lack of consultation may be undesirable but does not render the tender process illegal.