Advocate Javed Shaikh, representing the Kashmir Advocates Association, informed the court that there was no Bar Council in Jammu & Kashmir. He argued that, without a Bar Council, several important functions, such as issuing welfare tickets, were being managed by the High Court.
NEW DELHI: On January 31, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Union Government and the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in response to a writ petition filed by the Kashmir Advocates Association.
The petition, which was brought under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeks the establishment of a Bar Council for the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
The bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal heard the case briefly.
Advocate Javed Shaikh, representing the Kashmir Advocates Association, informed the court that there was no Bar Council in Jammu & Kashmir. He argued that, without a Bar Council, several important functions, such as issuing welfare tickets, were being managed by the High Court.
At the start of the hearing, Shaikh submitted, “This is a writ petition under Article 32 filed by the Kashmir Advocates Association. Mylords, there is no Bar Council in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.”
Justice Vikram Nath responded, saying, “Alright, issue notice returnable within 4 weeks.” This meant that the court had decided to send notices to the concerned parties and set a return date for their responses in the next four weeks.
Shaikh further requested the court to grant interim relief, emphasizing the need for welfare tickets.
“Your lordships are aware of the welfare tickets. The welfare tickets are to be published by the Government at the request of the Bar Council. The functions of Bar Council are right now being performed by the High Court. So, small indulgence. The Registrar may ask the Government to print it…” Shaikh proposed that, since there is no Bar Council, the High Court could facilitate the printing of these tickets on the government’s behalf.
However, before Shaikh could finish his argument, Justice Nath intervened and said, “Whatever system is there so far will continue…Is High Court a party? Let the notice go and let them come.”
Justice Bindal also expressed concerns about the request for interim relief, questioning where the funds would go in the absence of a Bar Council.
He said, “Where will the funds go when there is no Bar Council?” This reflected the complexity of the situation, as the role of the Bar Council in managing funds and resources was currently unclear.
The Supreme Court has given the Union Government and the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court four weeks to respond to the notice.
CASE TITLE:
KASHMIR ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 66/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
