A Division Bench, including Justice Sreedharan and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, directed the Registrar Judicial to present the matter to the Acting Chief Justice to consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the publishers.
Jammu & Kashmir: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Tuesday (4th Sept) strongly criticized a news report published by The Hindu, which claimed that Justice Atul Sreedharan had taken leave after cases under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act and Habeas Corpus matters were reassigned from the bench.
READ ALSO: 2019 Decision vs. J&K’s Integration: CJI Asks the Crucial Question
A Division Bench, including Justice Sreedharan and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, directed the Registrar Judicial to present the matter to the Acting Chief Justice to consider initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the publishers.
The Court stated that the news report, which alleged that the roster was changed mid-course, was “false, malicious, and contemptuous,” and it constituted interference with the administration of justice.
“The Court is also troubled by the incorrect information circulated on social media and in the newspaper, which falsely claimed that one of us (Atul Sreedharan-J) took leave due to the roster change. This is completely untrue, as the Judge had taken casual leave on September 2, 2024, for medical reasons,” the Court added.
Following the court order becoming public, The Hindu removed the digital version of the report that afternoon.
The news report, published on Monday, described the roster change as unprecedented, noting that “Justice Sreedharan is known for his incisive observations and bold directions. In several cases, he identified flaws in investigations and reprimanded the investigating agency. He was appointed as a Judge of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh in April 2023.”
READ ALSO: Senior Lawyer in J&K Detained Without Warrant, Booked Under PSA: Family Alleges
However, the Bench clarified the circumstances surrounding the roster change in its September 3 order, referencing materials provided by the Registrar General regarding the decision made on August 30.
The Court explained that NIA and Habeas Corpus cases were reassigned to a Special Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohd Akram Chowdhary to expedite proceedings.
“The NIA matters were considered separate due to their implications for liberty and national security, and the sensitivity of these cases warranted swift and efficient handling.”
The bench emphasized that media misrepresentation not only misleads the public but also undermines trust in the judiciary.
“The reasons given in the social media post implying that one of us (Atul Sreedharan-J) took leave in protest against the roster change suggest that the Judge is interested in having certain types of cases listed before him. This is a wrong and misleading inference drawn from the article on social media and in The Hindu,”
the Court concluded.
Case Title: Syed Meirajul Yasin vs Union of India
