Restraint and maturity are what the Tribunal Members could have shown, the High Court said, as it quashed the Rs 10,000 imposed as CAT Jammu costs on Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, holding that heated exchanges between the Bar and the Bench should not be escalated into contempt or costs against advocates.
Jammu: Costs imposed on a Senior Advocate without hearing him have been set aside by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, which found the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, to be in breach of the principles of natural justice and allowed the writ petition of Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai against the Rs 10,000 costs [Jahangir Iqbal Ganai v. Mohd. Amin Dar and Others].
WP(C) No. 3283/2026 was decided on October 21, 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M.A. Chowdhary. The petitioner appeared in person.
Heard before being penalised?
The Bench held that the costs were imposed without affording the Senior Advocate an opportunity of being heard, on a small matter that ought to have been sorted out in open court:
“the Bench should forebear from escalating it to the level of initiating contempt proceedings against the advocates or imposing costs on the person of the Advocates.”
It added that “had the learned Members of the Tribunal shown some level of restraint and maturity”, the situation leading to a contempt notice against a Senior Advocate could have been avoided. The Court was equally clear about the Bar’s side of the bargain, saying Senior Advocates in particular carry a higher responsibility to ensure that the dignity and decorum of the Court are maintained at all costs, so that small differences in perception do not drive a wedge between the Bar and the Bench.
ALSO READ: CAT Jammu Imposes Rs 10,000 Cost On Senior Advocate For Appearing Without Uniform
The October 7 order at the Tribunal
The costs were imposed on October 7, 2026 by a CAT Jammu Bench of Judicial Member Diwakar Singh and Administrative Member Ram Mohan Johri in O.A. No. 1359/2026. The Tribunal recorded that Ganai had appeared in a virtual hearing without uniform and seemed unapologetic about it, and a contempt notice was also issued against him. That account is as recorded by the Tribunal; this report expresses no view on what was said in its proceedings.
An invitation to chambers, and no one from the Tribunal
Ganai challenged the order before the High Court, which on a first hearing stayed it until the next listing and invited the Tribunal members and the petitioner to meet it in chambers on October 21 to explore a settlement. By its order of October 13, the Bench had directed both Tribunal Members and the petitioner to appear in person in chambers.
Taking up the matter out of turn on October 21, the Bench recorded that the petitioner was present but the Members, though served by hand, did not appear. An attempt by the Registry to provide a link for virtual appearance also failed, as neither Member responded to the telephone calls made by the Tribunal’s Registry. The Bench observed that the Members did not seem to wish to cooperate.
Order quashed
Choosing to “close the matter here only” without saying more, the Bench quashed the Tribunal’s order as “contrary to the law and in sheer breach of principles of natural justice” and allowed the writ petition.
What the order says about hearing the advocate
Costs and contempt notices against counsel for courtroom exchanges raise a basic fairness question: the advocate must be heard before any adverse order is made. The High Court’s order restates that sanctions on a lawyer cannot be imposed unheard, and that a bench is expected to show restraint when exchanges grow heated.
The Court stopped short of laying down any wider rule on dress code in virtual hearings, which was the occasion for the Tribunal’s order, and the order does not examine what was said in the Tribunal’s proceedings.
Case Title: Jahangir Iqbal Ganai v. Mohd. Amin Dar and Others [WP(C) No. 3283/2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice M.A. Chowdhary, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Date of Order: October 21, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, petitioner in person