DANISH IQBAL vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HEALTH) AND OTHERS

S. No.30
Regular List
,,,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


WP(C) No.772/2026
CM No.(1958/2026)

CM No.(2040/2026)





DANISH IQBAL

…..Petitioner(s)


Through: Petitioner in person.
V/s


UT OF J&K AND ORS


… ..Respondent(s)


Through : Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA



CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

ORDER
11.11.2026


1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has
challenged assessment report bearing No.PSY/MB/2026/136
dated 05.03.2026, issued by respondent No.5. A further
direction commanding the respondents to constitute a fresh
independent Medical Board for reassessment of petitioner’s
Psychiatric disability has also been sought.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, on 19.02.2026 he had
applied for issuance of a disability certificate in the category of
mental illness, as he is entitled to be considered for benchmark
disability certification of 40% and above in accordance with
applicable law. It has been submitted that the petitioner was
referred to Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital,

WP(C) No.772/2026 1 | P a g e

Rainawari for psychiatric assessment, pursuant whereto he
appeared before the Medical Board on 21.02.2026. Vide
impugned communication dated 05.03.2026, the Board after
assessing the psychiatric disability of the petitioner concluded
that the petitioner had a total score of 4 which is corresponding
to less than 40% disability.
3. It has been submitted that there is material on record to
show that the petitioner is suffering from disability of more than
40% but the Medical Board has erroneously assessed his
disability. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had
approached the Appellate/competent authority on 07.03.2026 by
submitting a detailed representation, including to Medical
Superintendent, Govt. Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar
through registered post but no action has been taken by the said
authority. It has been further contended that the Medical Board
did not consider the medical record submitted by the petitioner
adequately, as a result of which decision making process has
been rendered irrational and contrary to the principles of natural
justice.
4. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in
which it has been submitted that the Medical Board undertook
detailed psychiatric evaluation, mental status examination and
scrutiny of medical treatment record in accordance with Indian

WP(C) No.772/2026 2 | P a g e

Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale, whereafter the
Board found that the petitioner has secured a total score of 4
corresponding to less than 40% disability. It has been further
submitted that the assessment of the disability of the petitioner
has been made by the Medical Board after adhering to relevant
protocol and proper guidelines.
5. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for
the respondents. I have also perused record of the case.
6. The petitioner through the medium of present petition is
challenging the Psychiatric Assessment Report rendered by the
duly constituted Medical Board, comprising three Doctors from
Department of Psychiatry, one Clinical Psychologist and the
Medical Superintendent. The question that arises for
determination in this writ petition is as to whether this Court in
exercise of its powers under writ jurisdiction is competent to
undertake a judicial review of the assessment made by the duly
constituted Medical Board.
7. It is a settled law that scope of interference in matters
relating to assessment of fitness by a Medical Board constituted
under the statutory frame work in exercise of powers under writ
jurisdiction is extremely limited. The Courts have time and
again emphasized the need for caution when a litigant seeks to

WP(C) No.772/2026 3 | P a g e

assail the correctness of a Medical Board constituted by the State
Authorities.
8. In the light of the aforesaid consistent opinion of the Courts,
if we have a look at the grounds of challenge raised by the
petitioner for assailing the impugned assessment report, it is
revealed that the petitioner has not specified any rule, guideline
or protocol which has been violated by the Medical Board, while
issuing the impugned Assessment Report. The petitioner has not
pleaded any procedural irregularity or any mala-fides on the part
of the respondents while conducting his medical examination. In
the absence of any such assertion or any cogent material on
record that would throw doubt upon the report of the Medical
Board, there is hardly any scope for this Court to undertake
judicial review with the findings of the Medical Board,
particularly when the said Board comprises five doctors who are
qualified in the relevant field. This Court cannot substitute its
own opinion for the opinion rendered by the experts so as to act
as an Appellate authority.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR
11.11.2026
Sarveeda Nissar
1.
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

WP(C) No.772/2026 4 | P a g e

Sarveeda Nissar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
every page at bottom left side
13.11.2026 10:47