The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to conclude a criminal trial in a time-bound manner. The court held that issuing such directions would cause chaos but expected the trial court to avoid unnecessary adjournments and produce witnesses regularly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sr. No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
Case: CM(M) No. 375/2026
Saima and anr.
..... Petitioner(s)/Appellant (s)
Through :- Ms. Nadiya Mushtaq, Advocate. v/s
Union Territory of J&K.
.....Respondent(s)
Through :-
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER 27.08.2026
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (A)
JAMMU 27.08.2026 Sunita
SUNITA KOUL 2026.08.29 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to conclude the trial of a specific case in a time-bound manner.
Saima and anr.
Union Territory of J&K
Mohd. Yousof Wani
Sanjeev Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
