Back
J&K High Court Cracks Down on Govt's Reply Dodgers, Calls Law Secretary to Court
In a stern rebuke to bureaucratic foot-dragging, the has summoned the Secretary of the to appear personally. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal expressed deep frustration over the Union Territory government's persistent failure to file replies in writ petitions, despite repeated opportunities—a pattern that's clogging courts and undermining public faith in justice.
The trigger: WP(C) 1618/2023 filed by Ali Mohammad Wani against the and others, lingering since June 2023 with no response from respondents.
A Petition Lost in Bureaucratic Limbo
Ali Mohammad Wani launched his on , seeking relief from the Union Territory administration. Despite multiple adjournments—including a final chance on —the government counsel failed to submit replies. By , the court shut the door on further responses. Even directives to produce records went unheeded, with counsel appearing only sporadically. On , the bench noted zero compliance, spotlighting a " " that's become routine.
This isn't isolated. The order flags similar lapses in other cases, like Serial No. 19 ( ) and a backlog of government-linked matters, echoing concerns raised in an earlier ruling on in
Silent Respondents, Vocal Court
Petitioner's counsel, , pressed ahead amid government no-shows. Respondents, represented haphazardly by Government Advocates like stepping in last-minute, offered no substantive defense or records. No arguments on merits were aired; the hearing pivoted to procedural paralysis.
Justice Nargal dissected the fallout: government lawyers send reminders, but departments withhold " ," leaving counsel stranded. This, the court said, fuels backlogs and erodes efficiency.
Under Siege: Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning
No precedents were directly cited, but the bench wove constitutional imperatives into its critique. Timely compliance isn't optional—it's a "
" tied to
observance. Delays
"strike at the very root"
of justice, imperiling public confidence.
The court rejected executive indifference as "wholly impermissible," warning it renders judicial orders " " and hampers the "vibrant existence" of courts. Drawing from broader trends, it urged mechanisms for record transmission, reply drafting, case monitoring, and officer accountability—echoing a directive that went unheeded.
As media reports note, this flags a "continued failure" across cases, with no "concrete mechanism" in place despite warnings.
Key Observations
"The failure of the respondents even to produce the record, depicts that the respondents have shown scant respect to the orders of this Court and taking the orders passed by this Court from time to time very casually."
"Timely compliance of the orders and directions of the Court is not a matter of discretion, but a. Any delay or indifference in adherence thereto strikes at the very root of the."
"Judicial orders cannot be renderedby executive inaction or indifference."
"Theof the respondents in not filing the reply timely is highly deprecated by this Court."
Secretary on the Hot Seat: What's Ordered?
The court directed the Law Secretary to appear on , detailing steps for "effective assistance" to government counsel. Copies of this and prior orders go to the department for "appropriate action," mandating a "time-bound mechanism" to fix replies, monitoring, and accountability.
Interim orders in the petition stand. Practical fallout? Potential coercive measures against officials if ignored, plus ripple effects for government defenses in courts. This could spur systemic reforms, easing J&K's judicial backlog and reinforcing that courts demand respect from all, especially the state.
