English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Russian
Spanish
Urdu
The Supreme Court dismissed Jammu and Kashmir government’s challenge to a High Court order which directed the UT authorities to create 334 judicial posts within 60 days.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti passed the order, noting that the main matter is pending before the High Court and the observations contained in the impugned order – an interim order – were tentative.
The order was dictated thus: “We see no reason to entertain the present SLP and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the observations made in the interim order to at the interlocutory stage is made tentative in the event subject to the final order that would be passed in the pending proceedings.”
At the outset of the hearing, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj pointed out that 2 special leave petitions arising out of the same proceedings before the High Court are already pending before the Supreme Court. In response, Justice Roy noted that the top Court has granted relief in one of them, asking the High Court to not unnecessarily summon officials of J&K administration; however, the underlying order in the present case pertained to understaffed judicial offices.
Justice Bhatti, on the other hand, emphasized the burden on clerks and said that the UT itself invited the High Court’s observations because of its contentions.
In response, the ASG raised a grievance that such matters shall be dealt with on the administrative side, not judicial. “If on the judicial side they say whatever we say is binding, we can’t take anything forward”, he said, while informing that 156 posts have already been created. Objecting to the following observation made by the High Court, the ASG added that the “government can’t run with these observations”:
“.. Once the High Court has given on the judicial side its requirement for 334 posts, the act of the Government in stating that it would have to examine the requirement of the High Court based on the parameters of the number of judges working in the High Court and the number of posts against ongoing cases and also examining the requirement of this Court of 334 posts while drawing a comparison with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Allahabad High Court with its principal seat at Allahabad and one Bench at Lucknow, is gross contempt.”
Considering the submission, Justice Bhatti commented that perhaps the High Court was not happy with the comparison drawn with other High Courts/benches. Ultimately, the Court clarified that the High Court observations shall be seen as tentative.
Briefly put, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court is seized of a writ petition, filed in 2017, which originally sought monetary benefits for High Court employees. Over time, the case evolved into a broader discussion about the critical need for additional staff to address the growing requirements of the judiciary.
The High Court strength increased from 14 to 17 judges in 2021, and subsequently to 25. However, the UT administration repeatedly failed to act on recommendations from the High Court’s Registry, which in 2014 proposed creating 334 posts across various categories. The matter gained urgency with a February 2023 order from the Court, which pointed the acute need for staff and infrastructure. Although the UT administration eventually sanctioned 24 posts in May 2023 after significant delays, the broader recommendation for 334 posts remained in limbo.
Taking serious note, the High Court, vide order dated November 12, 2024, highlighted that recommendations from the High Court or the Chief Justice concerning post creation are binding on the government, leaving no room for discretion. It held that the financial implications must be borne by the consolidated fund of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
Criticizing the UT administration’s approach as laggardly and casual, the Court noted that compliance reports filed in a phased manner lacked specificity or urgency. Frowning over the UT government’s attempt to compare the requirements of the J&K High Court with other High Courts like Himachal Pradesh and Allahabad, the bench pointed out unique logistical challenges faced by the J&K High Court, such as maintaining dual establishments at Srinagar and Jammu, unlike other High Courts with single or primary benches.
Warning that any future attempts by the government to assess judicial staffing requirements would invite contempt proceedings, the Court observed,
“This High Court shall understand and accommodate the UT if the question is restricted only to the issue of finances. But we would take very serious note henceforth, if committees are made to sit and ascertain and assess the requirement of this Court. If it is ever so done again, this Court shall exercise its powers to initiate proceedings of contempt against those officers for their indiscretion.”
The case was listed before the High Court on January 25 for further review. Aggrieved by the order, the J&K government approached the Supreme Court. (LiveLaw)
