Tag: #J&KHC

The Name for the “Common High Court of UT of Jammu and Kashmir and UT of Ladakh” has been Changed and agreed by the officials and signed by the president to “High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh,” according to an official decision.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2021, has been signed by India’s President, Ram Nath Kovind, to bring about this transformation. The Department of Justice in the Law Ministry has issued an official order in this regard yesterday. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir was created by the Jammu and Kashmir Government Order Number 1 on March 26, 1928.

The official order said that the nomenclature will be changed. ” The current nomenclature is found to be rather long-winded and cumbersome; accordingly, the said nomenclature may be substituted as High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, which, in addition to being convenient, would also be under the name pattern followed in other common High Courts, namely Punjab and Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh;”

According to the official order, the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Ladakh and the Chief Justice of the Common High Court for the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh both indicated their approval for the proposed name and had no objections.

Thus, Ram Nath Kovind, President of India, issued the Order in exercise of the authority provided by subsection (1) of section 103 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, following order, namely:

To begin with the short title and commencement.- “(1) This Order may be called the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2021 (of 2021).”

(2) It will take effect on the day it is published in the official gazette. The terms “High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh” should be substituted for the phrases “Common High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh” In section 75 of clause (a) under the subsection 1 Territory of Ladakh” In section 75 of the clause (a) under the subsection 1

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, was passed to reorganize the existing state of Jammu and Kashmir into the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir was designated as the Common High Court for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh, Under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 75 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

-Report by ESHAN SHARMA

On June 10, 2021, a fifty-year-old Sajad Rashid Sofi reportedly made a comment at a Janata Darbaar saying that he has no expectations from the non-local police officers posted in Jammu & Kashmir. The accused is said to have made the comment during an interaction with locals at Mansbal in Central Kashmir and has reportedly created panic and enmity between groups.

Sofi was arrested by the Jammu & Kashmir police under Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code for promoting enmity between groups. To this, Sofi proceeded to move a bail application before the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal.

The bench of Judge Fakhr Un Nissa, on June 12, granted interim bail to Sofi till June 21, 2021, subject to various conditions. However, the police kept him under preventive detention, claiming that he was a potential “threat to peace” and that he could harass the witness and obstruct the investigation.

The legal counsel of the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in a frivolous case, of which he does not know of. He further stated that the applicant is the only source of earning for his family and if not released on bail, the family will die of starvation. Sofi’s advocate further ensured the court that Sofi will not harm or tamper with any part of the investigation.

The prosecution contended that the accused is involved in a non-bailable offence and thus, the accused is not entitled to bail as a matter of right. He further stated that there of credible evidence available against the accused and the concession of bail in the favour of the accused will harm the investigation.

On June 15th, the court stated that bail is a rule and its rejection is an exception. Bail in a non-bailable offence cannot be refused without supporting it with a strong reason although bail is ultimately at the discretion of the court. The court further stated that it has sufficient reason to exercise discretion of bail in favor of the applicant and granted interim bail up to 21st June, provided that he will furnish surety and personal bonds before the SHO concerned.

-Report by Anuj Dhar