'Not By Fair Means': J&K&L High Court Sounds Alarm on Sneaky Court Document Practices

In a stern procedural wake-up call, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has taken a firm stand against litigants submitting uncertified photostat copies ripped straight from court files as annexures in petitions. Justice Rahul Bharti, hearing CM(M) No. 42/2026 titled Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh and Ors. v. Qamar Un Nisa and Anr. , labeled the trend a clear sign of documents procured "not by fair means" and issued directives to stamp it out across both Union Territories.

A Routine Petition Turns into a Procedural Firestorm

The case stems from a miscellaneous civil petition filed by Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh and others against Qamar Un Nisa and another respondent, represented by advocate Saqib Shabir. On February 13, 2026, as the court reviewed the filings, it spotted a familiar issue: annexures that were mere uncertified photocopies, apparently sourced directly from lower court records. This wasn't isolated—Justice Bharti noted the High Court has seen this repeatedly in both civil and criminal matters.

While the underlying dispute remains unheard, the procedural lapse hijacked the hearing, spotlighting a systemic flaw where court clerks seemingly grant undue access to litigants for photocopying sensitive files.

No Room for Excuses: Court's Razor-Sharp Critique

Petitioners' counsel had little to say in defense, as the focus shifted to compliance. The court wasted no time, directing the advocate to furnish certified copies of all annexures (barring those already certified) within one week, with the matter relisted on February 23, 2026.

Drawing from repeated encounters, Justice Bharti dissected the practice: these photostats weren't random; they screamed unauthorized handling. Reports from legal circles, echoing the order, highlight how this bypasses official certification protocols, potentially compromising judicial integrity.

Piercing the Veil on Judicial Record Abuse

The court's reasoning cuts deep into administrative accountability. No precedents were invoked, but the observations lay bare a principle: court records demand formal procurement to ensure authenticity and prevent tampering risks. Justice Bharti refrained from deeper censure—yet—but flagged it as a "pointer to the fact that the procurement of document/s from the court records is not by fair means."

This aligns with broader concerns over clerical overreach, where access to files for photocopying undermines verification processes essential in higher court scrutiny.

Key Observations from the Bench

  • On the recurring issue : "This Court is coming across with petition relatable to the proceedings of civil as well as criminal cases wherein the annexures which have come to accompany the petition are uncertified copies but taken in photostat form from the Court record itself."

  • The red flag : "This type of court case documents procurement practice is nothing but a pointer to fact that the procurement of document/s from the court records is not by fair means."

  • Accountability hammer : "In case in future this Court would come across with any such document presented... the explanation would be warranted equally from the Presiding Officer/s as well as concerned clerk/s."

Directives with Teeth: A Territory-Wide Crackdown

The order packs punch beyond this case. Justice Bharti instructed the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar , to forward a copy to the Registrar General for "requisite strict instructions/directions to the Presiding Officers of all the Courts" in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Future violations? Expect scrutiny on judges and staff alike.

For litigants, the message is clear: certified copies or bust. This could streamline filings, deter shortcuts, and fortify trust in judicial processes, potentially reducing delays from defective petitions. As the practice draws heat, lower courts may tighten file access, reshaping how evidence reaches the High Court.