Legal Discourse

Summer Vacation Announced For District Courts In Jammu

In Jammu and Kashmir, the district courts in the summer zone of Jammu province, excluding those in district Kishtwar, Doda, and specific courts in Ramban and Kathua, will observe a 15 day summer vacation from 10th June to 24th June, 2024. The Akashvani Jammu Correspondent reports that, as per orders issued by the Registrar General of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the Principal District and Sessions Judges, along with Chief Judicial Magistrates of the concerned districts, are instructed to arrange for the disposal of urgent criminal cases within their respective jurisdictions during this period.

Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300 A, can be inferred in that Article.

In other words, to forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court observed in its judgement that the State cannot take possession of a person’s private property without following due procedure of the laws.

This verdict was given in a case where the Government of Himachal Pradesh had forcibly taken 4 acres of private land to build a road. This incident had occurred in 1967, at a village in Hamirpur district, in Himachal Pradesh.

Justice Malhotra highlighted the failure of the Himachal Pradesh Government to pay compensation for 52 years, to the appellant, who was a widow and illiterate.

Justice Malhotra empathized that the appellant had not filed any proceedings for the failure of the state government to pay land compensation, as the appellant was from a rural background and who was not educated enough to know her entitlements and rights given to her by the law.

After many years, the appellant moved to the Supreme Court, initially, she had filed a case in the High Court, but the High Court had asked to file a civil suit in the lower court, hence the Supreme Court was approached.

The Supreme Court observed in its judgement that the State becomes an encroacher when it grabs the private property of a person without following due process of law.
The Supreme Court ordered the Government to pay a compensation of Rs 1 crore to the 80-year-old appellant.

The Supreme Court on 26th February 2024 granted bail to a man accused of being involved in a dowry death after it was informed that his bail plea had been pending before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh for months without a decision [Arjun Kattal vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir].

Justices BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta observed that the accused (bail applicant) had been incarcerated in jail for almost eight years.

The Court also took into consideration the poor pace at which the criminal trial against him was proceeding. It proceeded to grant him bail despite the pendency of his bail plea before the High Court.

"The petitioner has been incarcerated in jail for a period of almost eight years. Taking into consideration this fact and the speed at which the trial is proceeding, we are inclined to grant bail in spite of the pendency of the matter before the High Court", the February 26 order stated.

*25 cases registered under sedition law in J&K in 5 years*

Srinagar, May 11: At a time when the Supreme Court has put a freeze on British-era sedition law, official data reveals that 25 cases were registered under it in Jammu & Kashmir from 2014 to 2019.

The data accessed by news agency, lays bare that 25 cases were registered under colonial era law of sedition in Jammu & Kashmir from 2014 to 2019.

The Supreme Court today restrained the authorities from registering FIRs, continuing any investigations or taking any coercive measures under section 124A (sedition).

The court also ordered that appeals and proceedings under Section 124A should be kept in abeyance for the time being.

According to the data, one case each under the sedition law was registered in Jammu and Kashmir in 2015 and 2017.

As per data, not a single case was registered under the law in J&K in 2014 and 2016.

The data lays bare that 12 cases were registered in 2018 when the erstwhile State was ruled by the PDP-BJP coalition government for nearly six months before imposition of Governor’s Rule on June 20 that year after BJP withdrew support to Mehbooba Mufti-led government citing “deteriorating security situation” in the state.

In the year 2019 when the Government of India abrogated Article 370 and reorganized the erstwhile state of J&K into two Union Territories, 11 cases were registered under sedition law in J&K.

It is worthwhile to mention that section 124A of IPC states that whoever “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India” can be held to have committed sedition.

While IPC became applicable to J&K after its reorganization, the provisions of sedition law were also existing in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), which was applicable to J&K till October 30, 2019.