The High Court reiterated precedents highlighting that the detaining authority must not make undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, and that Daily Diary Reports must not be vague and bereft of necessary details.
The High Court observed that the object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes which are made in the conduct of the cases.
The detenue specifically alleged that he made a representation against impugned detention order, however, the same was not considered by the detaining authority.
The respondent’s contention that the petitioner himself contributed to the unfortunate electrocution, was rejected by the Court.
If an officer, mechanically, under the guise of prevention of crime and to protect others, opens or extends history sheets, it impacts the right to privacy of not only the individual against whom the order is passed, but also causes harm to other person’s rights.
“It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures.” said the Supreme Court while deciding instant matter after elections were already conducted.
The Court answering the question in negative stated that eligibility under the scheme requires for the person to have participated in the National Freedom Struggle.
The Court also observed that fundamentalism pertaining to a Muslim is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and the same cannot have a negative bearing.
Village Defence Guard Scheme- 2022 insofar as it denudes the petitioners of their status as SPOs and consequently reduces their remuneration/honorarium is an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that revisionary power under Juvenile Justice Act vests only with the High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that vicarious liability of a company’s directors can be imputed as per the statutory provisions in cases where a company is an offender.
J&K and Ladakh High Court upheld the decision of the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allowing the respondents to claim the payment of double the sum assured, as per their deceased father’s life insurance policy, which had a “Double Accident Benefit Cover” clause
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: On the issue of whether wait list candidates can be considered for filling up vacancies
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Apprehension of harassment and violence at the hands of their relatives, led a young couple
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal, CJ, and Sanjay Dhar, J., asked Jammu and Kashmir