Back
J&K&L High Court Loses Patience: UT Govt Faces Stern Warning in PoJK Refugees' ST Status Battle
In a sharp rebuke, the has cautioned the Union Territory administration against further delays in a pivotal demanding status for 1947 displaced persons. A led by Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal adjourned the matter to , but not without a clear ultimatum: file the reply or face consequences.
The PIL, filed by the through President Gurdev Singh (WP(C) PIL No. 12/2025), highlights the plight of families uprooted during the 1947 partition, who claim shared ethnic and linguistic ties with the newly recognized Pahari community.
Roots of the Dispute: Decades-Old Injustice Meets New Tribal Order
The controversy ignited after the and extended ST status to the Pahari community across the entire UT, emphasizing ethnicity over geographical location . Yet, 1947 PoJK displaced persons—many Pahari-speaking—are allegedly denied ST certificates and "Pahari Speaking People" eligibility due to rigid residence-based criteria, despite their identical ethnic roots.
Petitioners argue this creates an arbitrary distinction, denying displaced families the benefits enjoyed by others. The case builds on years of advocacy, with the Sharnarthi Action Committee pushing for parity in a region scarred by partition-era migrations.
Petitioner's Push vs. Government's Silence
Advocate
Siddhant Gupta
, representing the petitioners, hammered home the discrimination: displaced families share the
"same ethnic and linguistic identity"
but are sidelined by location rules. During the
hearing, Gupta presented a crucial
communication dated
, affirming ST status for the Pahari Ethnic Group (PEG) on ethnicity grounds
across the entire UT
.
The UT government, through Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli , offered no substantive reply—despite repeated opportunities . Seeking yet another adjournment, Kohli undertook to file the response three days before the next date, prompting the court's frustration.
No detailed counter-arguments from the respondents appear on record yet, but the PIL alleges bureaucratic hurdles perpetuate exclusion from reservations and welfare schemes.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Procedure Meets Accountability
With no precedents cited in this procedural order, the Bench focused on procedural compliance in PILs, underscoring the judiciary's role in enforcing government accountability. The court took the Social Welfare communication on record (marked 'X'), directing the government to seek instructions and file a specific affidavit addressing it. This move signals potential scrutiny of whether ethnicity trumps residence in ST grants.
The ruling reinforces that PILs on fundamental rights—like equality under and tribal protections under —demand prompt responses, especially amid recent legislative shifts favoring Pahari inclusion.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Despite opportunity, the respondents have failed to submit response. Again an adjournment is prayed for."
"Though, there is hardly any justification to defer the proceedings any further..."
"However, it is made clear that in the event of default, appropriate orders shall follow."
These quotes capture the court's exasperation and resolve.
Adjournment with Teeth: What Lies Ahead?
The Bench adjourned to , granting leeway based on Kohli's assurance but issuing an unequivocal warning. "Appropriate orders shall follow" hints at contempt proceedings, costs, or adverse inferences—potentially forcing policy clarification.
For PoJK displaced persons, this could unlock ST benefits like reservations in jobs and education. Broader implications? It pressures the UT to align certificate issuance with the 2024 amendments, possibly reshaping tribal inclusion debates in J&K. Future cases on ethnicity-based rights may cite this as a benchmark for holding governments to timelines.
As the clock ticks toward 2026, the UT must respond—or risk the court's next move.
