High Court declines new health-related request of Mian Abdul Qayoom citing Supreme Court’s ongoing review

JAMMU, Apr 9: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an application seeking medical intervention for jailed petitioner Mian Abdul Qayoom, holding that no parallel directions can be issued as the matter is already under consideration of the Supreme Court.
The order was passed by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while hearing an application filed by the petitioner’s wife, who claimed that her husband, currently lodged in District Jail Amphalla, Jammu, had complained of acute pain in the right side of his abdomen.
According to the plea, the petitioner was taken to Government Medical College, Jammu, where an ultrasound reportedly indicated the presence of several cysts in the right kidney.
However, during the hearing, the High Court noted that the Apex Court, through its order dated February 24, 2026, had already directed the Director of AIIMS Jammu to constitute a Special Medical Team to examine the petitioner.
The directions mandate a comprehensive assessment of his medical condition, including the requirement of palliative care, and to indicate whether existing medical infrastructure in Jammu is adequate or if transfer to a higher medical centre, including Delhi, is necessary.
The High Court further observed that the petitioner’s counsel did not dispute the issuance of these directions and acknowledged that a medical report had already been prepared by the Special Medical Team, wherein the petitioner’s condition was stated to be stable.
Despite this, it was argued that the petitioner later complained of fresh abdominal pain during a telephonic call on March 7, 2026, and that the issue of multiple cysts came to light thereafter.
After hearing the submissions, the High Court underscored that “whether inside prison or outside, a person shall not be deprived of his guaranteed freedom save by methods ‘right, just and fair’,” adding that the right to life includes the right to health and timely medical care, and the State is obligated to provide proper medical attention to inmates.
Nonetheless, the High Court held that since the Supreme Court is already seized of the matter and has issued “specific and comprehensive directions,” it would not be appropriate to pass any overlapping orders.
The High Court also took note of the applicant’s failure to place on record the Supreme Court’s orders dated February 24 and March 24, 2026, observing that 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”.
“The present application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed,” the Court ruled. At the same time, it clarified that dismissal of the application shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and will not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedies before the competent forum in accordance with law