The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the termination of Dr. Shazia Salam, a contractual anaesthetist, who was labelled “vulnerable” and “unsuitable” without any prior inquiry or notice. 

Justice Sanjay Dhar ruled that such remarks are stigmatic and violate principles of natural justice, especially when they affect future employment prospects. 

While reinstatement wasn’t granted due to the scheme’s closure, the Court ordered payment of salary from July 2022 to February 2023, with 6% interest if delayed. The government must also pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

[Dr. Shazia Salam v. UT of J&K & Ors.]

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a mother-in-law, not named in a domestic violence case, cannot appeal under the DV Act.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul dismissed her plea, saying she’s neither an "aggrieved person" nor a party to the original case.

The woman had challenged a Sessions Court order denying her permission to appeal a Magistrate’s ruling in a DV case filed by her daughter-in-law.

Thus, it dismissed the plea with liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial court with an application for impleadment as a party.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that inciting people to secede from India amounts to an ‘unlawful activity’ under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 

The Division Bench of Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar set aside a trial court’s discharge order for two accused who raised separatist slogans in Bandipora, stating their actions fall under Section 13(1) of the UAPA. 

The Court distinguished this case from the Supreme Court’s Balwant Singh judgment, highlighting that Singh was involved in sedition and not the UAPA provisions. 

The trial court has now been directed to proceed with framing charges.

[Union Territory of J&K Through Police Station Bandipora v Ameer Hamza & Anr]

The Supreme Court clarified that its May 20 ruling mandating three years’ practice for judicial service aspirants will apply prospectively and not affect ongoing recruitments.

A bench of CJI B.R. Gavai, Justices K. Vinod Chandran, and N.V. Anjaria refused to interfere with the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission’s May 14, 2025, notification for Civil Judge posts, which did not include the experience requirement.

The Court noted that at the time the notification was issued, the High Court could not have anticipated the later ruling. 

The Court allowed withdrawal of the petition challenging the omission and dismissed the reliefs sought, emphasising that the rule will not disrupt ongoing recruitment cycles. 

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has issued a circular amending civil procedures to safeguard Armed Forces personnel involved in litigation.

The directive mandates courts to identify and prioritize cases concerning defence personnel, considering their service-related constraints.

The court requires prior notice before instituting civil suits against government servants, including military personnel, unless court permission is granted in urgent matters. 

Incorporating provisions from the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925, the circular allows for suspension of proceedings, representation through power of attorney without court fees, and protection from arrest for civil debts. Judges must strictly enforce these safeguards.

The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere involvement in a grave economic offence is insufficient to invoke Section 111 of the BNS, which deals with organised crime.

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the provision applies only if the accused was previously charge‑sheeted in similar cases within ten years and courts had taken cognisance of those offences. 

In a ₹53 crore cyber fraud case, the Court found that these conditions were not met and called the invocation of Section 111 premature. Granting bail to the accused, the Court stressed that statutory safeguards under BNS must be strictly followed.  (Aamir Bashir Magray Vs UT Of J&K)

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that advocating for Jammu & Kashmir’s secession from India amounts to unlawful activity under Section 13(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Court overturned a trial court’s order discharging accused individuals who allegedly raised pro-secession slogans after Friday prayers in Bandipora in 2015. The Court clarified that UAPA punishes incitement or abetment of secession, even without violence.

Dismissing reliance on the Balwant Singh case, the Court found sufficient evidence, including witness statements, to continue prosecution.

The Court restored the chargesheet and directed the trial court to frame charges under UAPA and proceed with the trial.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a driver with a valid licence to operate a transport vehicle can legally drive both heavy goods and passenger vehicles without needing a separate Public Service Vehicle (PSV) endorsement.

This came in an appeal by National Insurance Co. Ltd., disputing a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award.

The Court interpreted Sections 2(14), 2(16), 2(35), 2(47), and amended Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clarifying that post-1994, all commercial vehicles fall under a single "transport vehicle" category. 

The appeal was dismissed, and prior contradictory judgments were declared per incuriam.

After the Gurgaon court, Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association has prohibited non-lawyers from wearing white shirts with black coats or trousers inside court premises, citing concerns over rising cases of impersonation and misconduct.

The Association stressed that the black-and-white dress code is a symbol of professional identity meant exclusively for advocates. It warned against misuse of the attire by unauthorised individuals.

The Bar body also directed lawyers to ensure their interns dress appropriately, allowing a formal uniform with a black necktie but strictly barring them from wearing the white 'band' worn by practising advocates. 

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that civil courts can entertain Waqf property disputes in the absence of a Waqf Tribunal under Section 83 of the Waqf Act.

The bench dismissed a revision plea challenging a trial court’s decision allowing a suit concerning Waqf property in Srinagar, emphasising that the tribunal's absence prevents the bar under Section 85 from applying.

The Court added that once a tribunal is set up, pending cases should be transferred to it to ensure proper adjudication.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that a Magistrate can drop proceedings or revoke interim orders under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if no case is made out after hearing the respondent and examining the record.

Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that these proceedings are not strictly criminal, allowing the Magistrate discretionary powers to reassess prior orders.

The Court referred to the SC’s Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan ruling, affirming the Magistrate’s power to recall interim orders if parties are unnecessarily involved or no prima facie case exists.

The petitioner may apply to the Magistrate to drop proceedings and revoke interim compensation, with orders expected within one month.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a 34-year-old writ petition by Mohd Khalil Qazi and his wife Arifa, who challenged their deportation to Pakistan.

The couple had voluntarily acquired Pakistani citizenship, Khalil after the 1948 war and Arifa upon marrying in 1986, leading to automatic termination of their Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. 

The court noted that the petitioners had no legal entitlement to remain in India after their visas had expired, and it also ruled that the deportation orders are valid.

The court concluded that their continued stay in Srinagar is unlawful.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted regular bail to a man accused of killing his wife with a rifle, citing a lack of credible evidence.

The Court noted that key witnesses, including the couple's children, either denied seeing the incident or changed their earlier statements.

Even the seizure of the weapon was doubtful, as witnesses said they just signed papers without witnessing the recovery. The Court held that 13 out of 20 witnesses had no proof linking the accused to the crime.

Citing Section 485 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court granted bail with strict conditions. (Yashpaul Sharma Vs UT of J&K)

A court in Anantnag rejected bail for a man accused of raping a 70-year-old tourist from Maharashtra in Pahalgam on April 11. 

The woman was allegedly attacked in her hotel room, gagged with a blanket, and raped before the accused fled through the window.

The court said this act showed extreme moral decay and insulted Kashmir’s legacy of hospitality and culture. It added that such crimes damage the image of Kashmir as a tourist destination.

Referring to Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the court stressed this was not just a crime, but a societal failure needing deep reflection.