The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed an application filed by Mian Abdul Qayoom’s wife, holding that the Supreme Court is already seized of the issue and has issued comprehensive directions on his medical examination and treatment.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed an application filed in CM(1781/2026) in WP(C) 1222/2025 concerning the medical condition of Mian Abdul Qayoom. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, by order dated 08.04.2026, held that the application was not maintainable because the Supreme Court had already issued specific and comprehensive directions governing the petitioner’s medical examination and treatment.
The order records that the application was preferred by the applicant, who is the wife of the petitioner, Mian Abdul Qayoom. It stated that she had received a telephonic communication from her husband, who is presently lodged in District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu, informing her of acute pain on the right side of his abdomen. It was further submitted that he was taken to Government Medical College, Jammu, where an ultrasound examination allegedly indicated the presence of several cysts in the right kidney.
When the matter was taken up, the Court confronted the applicant’s senior counsel, Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, with the fact that the Supreme Court, by order dated 24 February 2026, had already directed the Director, AIIMS Jammu to constitute a Special Medical Team for examination of the petitioner. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court’s directions required a comprehensive assessment of the petitioner’s medical condition, including the need for palliative care, and also required the team to state whether the existing medical infrastructure was adequate or whether transfer to a higher medical centre, including Delhi, was necessary.
The order further records that the applicant’s senior counsel did not dispute the existence of the Supreme Court directions. The High Court also noted that the matter had been listed before the Supreme Court on 24 March 2026, and that at the request of the petitioner’s counsel it had been directed to be listed again on 21 April 2026.
In response to the Court’s query on whether parallel directions could be issued despite the subsisting Supreme Court directions, counsel for the applicant submitted that a medical report had already been obtained through the Special Medical Team and that the petitioner’s condition had been opined to be stable. However, it was argued that the applicant later received a telephonic call from the petitioner on 7 March 2026, after submission of that report, in which he complained of acute abdominal pain, and that the presence of multiple cysts in the right kidney came to light only thereafter.
Justice Nargal observed that, whether inside prison or outside, a person cannot be deprived of guaranteed freedom except by methods that are right, just and fair. The Court added that the right to life includes the right to health and timely and adequate medical care, and that the State has a corresponding obligation to ensure proper medical attention to every inmate in custody. Even so, the Court held that since the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter and had issued specific and comprehensive directions, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to issue any parallel or overlapping directions by taking cognisance of the instant application.
The High Court also noted that, while filing the application, the applicant had not placed on record the Supreme Court’s order dated 24.02.2026 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1381/2026, arising out of the judgment and order dated 16.12.2025 in Crl.A(D) No. 50/2025, nor the subsequent order dated 24.03.2026 by which an adjournment had been sought on behalf of the petitioner. The Court said it was incumbent upon the applicant to make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts and orders having a direct bearing on the issue raised.
In view of these reasons, the Court held that the present application was not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly. However, it clarified that the dismissal should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter and would not preclude the petitioner from seeking such remedy as may be available in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
