Following Mian Qayoom’s arrest in a terrorism case, J&K’s administration has banned High Court Bar Association elections, citing fears of unrest. District Magistrate Bilal Mohi-ud-Din Bhat issued the order, citing concerns over potential disruptions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SRINAGAR: Days after Mian Qayoom, a senior advocate and the last elected president of Jammu and Kashmir’s High Court Bar Association (HCBA), was arrested in a terrorism conspiracy case, the J&K administration has taken the unprecedented step of banning elections within the lawyers’ body. The administration cited unspecified apprehensions of a potential “breach of peace” as the primary reason behind this decision.
In an official order numbered 08 DMS of 2024, issued on Tuesday(June 25), Srinagar District Magistrate Bilal Mohi-ud-Din Bhat expressed concerns about the possible repercussions if the HCBA proceeded with its scheduled elections.
The order stated-
“There is a current situation that could result in a breach of peace and public disorder if the J&K HCBA proceeds with the scheduled elections.”
The HCBA election, which has not been held since 2020, was scheduled for July 1, following a notification issued by the association on June 11. Qayoom, who was detained for a year under the controversial Public Safety Act in 2019, was arrested earlier this week for his alleged involvement in the high-profile killing of lawyer Babar Qadri at his Srinagar residence in 2020.
To ensure that the situation remains under control, the order further elaborated-
“I, as the District Magistrate of Srinagar, exercising my authority under Section 144 of the CrPC, hereby prohibit gatherings of four or more persons at the District Court Complex, Moominabad, Batmaloo, or any other location for the purpose of conducting elections for the J&K High Court Bar Association Srinagar, until further notice.”
The administration also directed the Srinagar senior superintendent of police (SSP) to ensure compliance and “prevent any potential law and order situation,” warning that any violation of the order would attract punitive action under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 188 states-
“If disobedience results in or poses a risk to human life, health, or safety, or incites rioting or affray, the offender may face imprisonment for up to six months, a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.”
The justification for the ban was rooted in a letter from the Kashmir Advocates Association (KAA), a parallel lawyers’ body set up after the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which is widely perceived to have state backing. The letter, numbered KAA/prez/2024/034 and dated June 15, accused the HCBA of propagating a “secessionist ideology” in Jammu and Kashmir.
Additionally, a report (CS/83-24/37160-62) by SSP Srinagar on June 24 to the District Magistrate stated that the HCBA has –
“secessionist ideology, with a history of intimidating members of the legal fraternity and others who oppose its members’ ideology, and providing free legal aid to anti-national elements.”
This development comes at a time when the region is already grappling with political uncertainty and security concerns. The arrest of Qayoom has only added to the volatility, with many fearing that the ban on HCBA elections could further escalate tensions. The administration’s firm stance reflects its intent to maintain order, but it also underscores the deep divisions and contentious atmosphere prevailing within the legal community in Jammu and Kashmir.
The HCBA, known for its influential role in the region’s legal and political landscape, now faces an uncertain future with its election process halted indefinitely. The move has sparked debates on the implications for democracy and the rule of law in Jammu and Kashmir, with advocates on both sides voicing their concerns.
The constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association (JKHCBA) includes a clause aimed at resolving issues concerning the public, including the larger issue of the peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue. According to the constitution,
the association aims-
“To explore methods and initiatives aimed at addressing public concerns, including the larger issue of achieving a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflict. This may involve organizing seminars, conventions, delegating members to different locations within and outside India, and collaborating with associations, bodies, or forums that share similar objectives.”
This particular clause has attracted significant scrutiny and controversy, leading to governmental intervention. Last year, the District Magistrate (DM) issued a notice to the HCBA president and its election committee regarding the association’s stance on the “peaceful settlement of Kashmir issue.” The notice stated-
“The HCBA was requested to clarify its stance on the matter, as it contradicts the constitution of India, which recognizes J&K as an integral part of the country rather than a dispute. Additionally, this position conflicts with the Advocates Act, 1961.”
The Advocates Act, which governs the functioning and terms of state bar councils and the Bar Council of India, stipulates that a bar council shall be a body corporate or a legal entity under Section 2(11) of the Companies Act, 2013, with the power to acquire and hold property.
However, the DM’s order highlighted a critical issue:
“No response was received from the JKHCBA regarding its registration, a fundamental legal requirement for any such association.”
adding that the HCBA constitution was –
“antithetical to the sovereignty and integrity of the country.”
Additionally, a communication from the Registrar of Societies, Kashmir, indicated that the JKHCBA was not a registered body.
The situation escalated when the State Investigation Agency (SIA) arrested Mian Abdul Qayoom, the 80-year-old last elected president of the HCBA and one of Kashmir’s most prominent lawyers, in connection with the murder of advocate Babar Qadri. Following his arrest, a court in Jammu remanded Qayoom to police custody till July 1.
Advocate Qadri was tragically killed on September 24, 2020, by unidentified gunmen disguised as prospective clients at his Srinagar residence. The investigation led to the registration of a case under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 7 and 27 of the Arms Act at Lal Bazar police station in Srinagar. Five individuals were subsequently charge-sheeted in connection with the case.
The SIA, established following the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories in 2019, claimed it had uncovered “new evidence” during the investigation with the “potential to unravel the conspiracy part in this killing.” They later stated there was “substantial evidence” against Qayoom, who was known to be a close associate of the former Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani.
The complexity of the case was further highlighted when the SIA moved an application in the J&K High Court, stating that no lawyer in Kashmir was willing to provide legal assistance to the state. The court ruled-
“For a fair and impartial trial of a criminal case, it is crucial that witnesses can testify in an environment that is free from hostility.”
thus transferring the case to Jammu.
