Early Life and Education
Justice Tashi Rabstan was born in an agriculturist family of Varsudopa on 10-4-1963 at Village Skurbuchan, in District Leh Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir State. He did his Graduation and LL.B from University of Jammu; and was enrolled as an Advocate on 6-3-1990 in Bar Council of Jammu and Kashmir1.
Career: From the Bar to the Bench2
Post enrolment, Justice Tashi Rabstan started practicing in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and various other High Courts in variety of fields including- Arbitration, Constitution, Service, Election, Civil and Criminal matters. Justice Rabstan further gained experienced in researching the intent of laws and judicial decisions and application of law to clients’ circumstances.
Attaining further progress in his career, Justice Rabstan was appointed as Standing Counsel for Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Leh and remained in this position from 1997 till 2005. Justice Rabstan was also appointed as Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, for Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Jammu Wing in September, 1998. Furthermore, Justice Rabstan was also appointed as panel counsel for Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi and remained in the position from April, 2008 till 31-12-2011.
Justice Tashi Rabstan legal career took a new trajectory when he was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and took oath of office on 8-3-2013. He was then appointed as permanent Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir on 16-05-2014.
Justice Rabstan also performed the duties of Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on two occasions- 2022 and 2024.
Taking note of Justice Tashi Rabstan’s stellar legal and judicial career, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his name for appointment as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court.
However, the Collegium modified this proposal on 17-9-2024 and recommended Justice Rabstan name for appointment as Chief Justice of his parent High Court i.e., Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
Eventually, Justice Rabstan’s appointment as Chief Justice was confirmed on 21-9-2024 and he took oath of office on 27-9-2024. The oath was administered by Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, with the presence of Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh Brig. (Dr.) B.D. Mishra and First Lady Neelam Mishra. The ceremony was attended by notable dignitaries, including Chairman/CEC, LAHDC, Adv. Tashi Gyalson, Chairman of the Hill Council Kargil Dr. Mohammad Jafer and representatives from the judiciary, administration, police, Bar Association and others.3
Did you Know? Justice Tashi Rabstan is the first Chief Justice from the region of Ladakh, which has otherwise little to no representation among the Judges of the High Courts of India4.
Notable Judgments
J&K High Court treats Social Media letter on non-recruitment for Gazetted posts in Ladakh as PIL
In a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of J&K High Court, surfacing on social media, raising concern about the lack of recruitment for gazetted cadre posts in the Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh over the past five years, thereby, causing distress and uncertainty among the educated youth of Ladakh, a Division bench of Tashi Rabstan, CJ., and Puneet Gupta, J., directed that the concern letter be treated as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). [Gazetted Aspirants Residents of Ladakh v. State (UT of Ladakh), 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 860]
J&K High Court seeks Govt’s response on reservation policy for transgender community in J&K
In a Public Interest Litigation concerning the rights and welfare of transgender community in the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) and Ladakh, focusing on access to medical care, pensionary benefits, and possible reservations in the public sector, a Division bench of Tashi Rabstan, CJ., and Puneet Gupta, J., sought compliance and action plans from the authorities to ensure the transgender community’s rights and welfare are adequately addressed. [Aijaz Ahmad Bund v. State (UT of J&K), 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 858]
In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a social activist alleging that the government authorities in Jammu and Kashmir have neglected their duties concerning the protection, renovation, and welfare of ancient Hindu temples in the region, a division bench of Tashi Rabstan, ACJ., and Puneet Gupta, J., dismissed the PIL as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The Court directed the concerned authorities to address the petitioner’s representation within four weeks, failing which the petitioner may reapproach the Court. [Gautam Anand v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 629]
While considering the instant PIL seeking to issue directions for the protection of fundamental rights of the parents of the youth who drowned in the Chenab River under mysterious circumstances and whose body was found in Pakistan, the Division Bench of Tashi Rabstan, ACJ* and Rajnesh Oswal, JJ., took suo motu cognizance of the incident and issued notices to Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs and Union Territory of J&K, through Secretary to Government. [Indu Bhushan Bali v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 578]
While deciding the instant petition wherein the issue was that whether the change of user (misuse of a building from residential to commercial or vice versa) in violation of the permitted land use as per the master plan for an area to which the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 applies, would fall within the ambit of unauthorized ‘erection or re-erection’ as contemplated under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the afore-stated 1988 Act; the Division Bench of Wasim Sadiq Nargal and Tashi Rabstan, JJ., observed that in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, the State by no stretch of imagination, can deprive a citizen of his/her property without the sanction of law, besides complying with the procedure envisaged in the statutory provision. [Meenakshi Chouhan v. Jammu Municipal Corpn., 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 593]
Compassionate Appointments are not for conferring status on a family: J&K and Ladakh HC
While deciding the instant appeal vis-a-vis compassionate appointment, the Division Bench of Tashi Rabstan and Wasim Sadiq Nargal, JJ., held that once an individual has accepted the compassionate appointment and joined their respective post, they, at a later stage, cannot claim that they ought to have been appointed on a higher post. It was also held that an applicant has no right to claim a compassionate appointment in a particular class or group and it is not for conferring status on the family. [Paras Kapoor v. State (UT of J&K), 2022 SCC OnLine J&K 597]
While dismissing the petition seeking release from preventive detention to the detenu involved in Pulwama conspiracy, Tashi Rabstan, J., remarked, “Acts or activities of individual or a group of individuals, prejudicial to the security of the State or public order, has magnitude of across-the boarder disfigurement of societies. No court should tune out such activities, being swayed by passion of mercy.” The District Magistrate had placed one Muntazir Ahmad Bhat under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The case of the petitioner (father of the detenu) was that the detenu was arrested and detained under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 on false and flimsy grounds without any justification in terms of the impugned detention order. [Muntazir Ahmad Bhat v. UT, J&K, 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 900]
The Division Bench of Tashi Rabstan and Ali Mohammad Magrey, JJ., addressed the instant petition seeking for issuance of directions to the government for providing promotion opportunities to the persons working as restorers in the High Court. The Bench remarked, “It is settled position of law that right of consideration for promotion to the next higher post is a fundamental right of an employee. Opportunity of advancement in service career by promotion is considered to be a normal incidence of service”. [Latif Hussain Khan v. State of JK]5
Tashi Rabstan, J., while addressing the syllogistic issue of ‘venue and ‘seat’ of arbitration dismissed the appeal challenging the dismissal order of District Court refusing to entertain a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench opined that, Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts. [Supinder Kour v. MDN Edify Education Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 594]
Tashi Rabstan J., in a matter relating to preventive detention declined to provide opinion over that of detaining authority and reiterated that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man but to prevent from any further acts. The present case relates to the detenu, Mian Abdul Qayoom who is a renowned Practising Senior Advocate in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and is also the President of the High Court Bar Association. The detenu had been placed under preventive detention in the year 2010 and after several confinements in various Sub Jails of the state, the detention order was withdrawn. The detenu was said to have been arrested during August 2019 and has been lodged into police custody under preventive detention. Upon several enquires as to the grounds of detention the close relatives of the detenu received an order and it was reported that the detenu was suffering from various ailments. [Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State of J&K, 2020 SCC OnLine J&K 96]
Tashi Rabstan, J. upheld the finding of the revisional court as it was found to be well reasoned and no abuse of process of law was visible, warranting any interference from the instant Court. The petitioner filed the instant petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C”) for setting aside the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the order, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Munsiff) Jammu discharging the petitioners from the offences mentioned in the Challan against them by the prosecution was set aside. [Tamandeep Singh v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 855]
A Division Bench comprising of Gita Mittal, CJ and Tashi Rabstan, J. allowed an application whereby a suspension of sentence was prayed. The facts of the case are that the appellant was arrested in early 2005 and by the time the custody certificate was issued; the appellant had undergone actual incarceration of over 13 years and 5 months. It was found that the appellant was convicted under Section 302 RPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment. [Darshan Lal v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 1011]
2. Supra
3. Justice Tashi Rabstan takes oath as CJ of J&K and Ladakh HC
4. SC Collegium recommends High Court CJs
5. WP(C) No.1410/2019
