The Jammu and Kashmir High Court criticized the UT administration’s “couldn’t care less” attitude towards complying with its orders and warned of “firm measures” if compliance is not ensured. The court has ordered key officials to appear for a hearing today after two of them missed a previous court appearance, leading to the bench’s frustration.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Union Territory (UT) administration’s “couldn’t care less” attitude towards complying with its orders. The court has warned that it may have to resort to “firm measures” to ensure adherence to its directives.
Court Summons Top Officials
In an order issued on Monday, a Division Bench consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Javed Iqbal Wani mandated the presence of Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo, Principal Secretary Finance Santosh D Vaidya, Secretary General Administration Department Sanjeev Verma, and Secretary PWD (Roads and Bridges) Bhupinder Kumar at a court hearing scheduled for today(8th August). This order followed the absence of two out of four civil servants during a contempt petition hearing, which greatly displeased the bench.
The court stated-
“If any of them fails to comply with the order to appear in person on 08/08/2024, the court will implement coercive measures to ensure their attendance.”
Additionally, it was ordered that a copy of this order be delivered to the Advocate General’s office under the signature of the Bench Secretary.
Background of the Contempt Petition
The court was hearing a contempt petition regarding the non-compliance of its August 2023 order, which directed authorities to grant higher pay scales to chief engineers and other senior engineers promptly. During the hearing on Monday morning, the court had instructed the aforementioned officials to attend a hearing via a video link that same afternoon. While the secretaries for finance and PWD attended, the secretary GAD was on leave, and the Advocate General D.C. Raina informed the court that the chief secretary was experiencing connectivity issues but would join soon.
ALSO READ: “Absolute Breach of Top court’s Order”, Supreme Court Slams Delhi Government.
However, a few minutes into the hearing, Law Secretary Achal Sethi appeared via video link and informed the court that the chief secretary was attending a meeting and was therefore indisposed.
This discrepancy infuriated the Bench, leading it to comment-
“As of now, this court is unable to ascertain as to who is lying — whether it is the person who informed the Ld. Advocate General that the chief secretary is keen to join the proceedings and shall do so in a few minutes, or whether it was the Law Secretary who was instructed to state incorrectly on behalf of the Chief Secretary. Both these versions are starkly disparate and in gross contradiction to each other.”
Delay in Filing Special Leave Petition
The situation further deteriorated when legal representatives of the state revealed that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed in the Supreme Court in June, contesting the high court’s August order. Upon inquiry about the ten-month delay in filing the SLP, the Principal Secretary Finance explained that approval was only granted in February. When pressed further, the official said he would investigate the cause for the delay.
Upon reviewing the SLP on the Supreme Court website, the Bench discovered that the court registry had identified seven defects in the petition that had not been addressed. This led to another round of severe criticism from the court.
The court remarked-
“…from the conduct of the Union Territory Government, it is evident that there is a complete lack of sincerity in complying with the court’s order. This reflects a regrettable state of affairs in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir concerning judicial proceedings and orders.”
The Bench further added that the justice system in the UT had been reduced “to a cruel joke.” It observed-
“This reflects a shocking scenario where the Executive is blatantly disregarding the court’s orders with complete disdain, assuming that this court will not take any measures threatening their liberty for such disobedience.”
In order to restore “a semblance of sanity,” the court emphasized that it would not hesitate to take “precipitate measures.” The Bench stated-
“Once an order is issued, it must be complied with fully, either in letter or spirit, unless stayed or overturned by a superior court or a larger bench; otherwise, the contemner must be ready to face the consequences of contempt of court.”