Jammu and Kashmir High Court Blasts J&K Administration for Disregarding Judicial Directives
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a harsh rebuke to the J&K administration on Monday, condemning its disregard for court orders and the overall state of judicial proceedings in the region. The court’s remarks came in the context of a case involving Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo, who failed to attend proceedings via video conference, exacerbating the court’s frustration with the administration’s performance.
Court’s Criticism of Administrative Conduct
The division bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, expressed severe discontent with the J&K administration’s handling of court orders, accusing it of treating the judicial system as a “cruel joke.” The bench highlighted that over six thousand contempt petitions remain unresolved, some for 10 to 15 years, and thousands more for 1 to 5 years, indicating systemic failures in delivering justice.
Issue of Chief Secretary’s Absence
The court’s ire was further fueled by Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo’s absence from a video conference related to a contempt case involving the pay scale of Chief Engineers. Advocate General DC Raina claimed the Chief Secretary was facing connectivity issues, while Law Secretary Achal Sethi stated that Dulloo was engaged in another meeting. The court found these conflicting explanations troubling and questioned their credibility.
Delays and Non-Compliance
During the proceedings, the court scrutinized the delay in filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) with the Supreme Court, noting a ten-month lag despite a sanction granted in February 2024. Additionally, the SLP filed on June 25 remained incomplete due to unresolved defects, further highlighting the administration’s lack of urgency and sincerity in complying with judicial orders.
Historical Context and Court’s Stance
The bench remarked that the persistent non-compliance with court orders in J&K was partly due to excessive leniency shown by the judiciary in maintaining a harmonious relationship with the executive. This leniency had led to prolonged delays in contempt cases. The court criticized the administration’s “couldn’t care less” attitude and underscored the need for stricter enforcement of compliance to ensure that court orders are taken seriously.
Judicial Measures and Recommendations
The court emphasized that if contempt cases continue to be delayed without resolution, it undermines the very essence of judicial authority. It called for a more rigorous approach to enforce compliance and suggested that the court may need to adopt firmer measures to ensure that its orders, and those of lower courts, are respected and implemented fully.
Orders in the matter have been reserved as the court deliberates further on the appropriate course of action.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
