Srinagar: Taking serious exception to “repeated non-compliance of court orders by government authorities”, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed personal appearance of the UT’s Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.
The order, passed by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on April 22, 2026 in a case — Ali Mohammad Wani vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors — underscores the court’s concern “over systemic delays and lack of accountability in government litigation”.
The case, pending since June 14, 2023, reveals a prolonged failure on part of the respondents to file their reply despite multiple opportunities, noted the court.
Even after a “last opportunity” granted in October 2025, no response was filed, prompting the court to close the respondents’ right to reply in November 2025.
Subsequently, directions to produce the official record were also “not complied with”, and on the latest hearing, there was initially no representation from the respondents.
Expressing strong displeasure, the court observed that the authorities had shown “scant respect to the orders of this court” and were “taking the orders passed by this court from time to time very casually.”
The bench noted that such conduct reflects a troubling pattern in cases involving the government, where procedural timelines are routinely ignored.
Highlighting the broader impact, Justice Nargal remarked that “in a large number of cases involving the government, replies are not being filed within the stipulated time, despite repeated opportunities being granted,” adding that this practice “not only contributes to the mounting backlog of cases, but also seriously impedes the efficient administration of justice.”
The court stressed the urgent “need for institutional reform and called for a structured mechanism to ensure timely handling of cases”. It recommended steps including prompt transmission of records, timely filing of replies, effective monitoring, and fixation of responsibility on erring officials.
On the issue of accountability, the court took note of submissions that government law officers often issue repeated reminders to departments for parawise comments, “yet responses are delayed”.
In this regard, it directed that responsibility be fixed on officers whose inaction leads to adverse consequences, observing such lapses “hamper the interests of the government” in litigation.
In a significant constitutional observation, the court held that “timely compliance of the orders and directions of the court is not a matter of discretion, but a constitutional imperative”. It further warned that “any delay or indifference in adherence thereto strikes at the very root of the rule of law and has the tendency to erode public confidence in the administration of justice.”
The bench also made it clear “judicial orders cannot be rendered nugatory by executive inaction or indifference,” cautioning that any conduct obstructing enforcement of court orders is “plainly impermissible and incompatible with constitutional discipline.”
Emphasizing democratic accountability, the court observed that “one of the measures to judge democratic commitment of any government is the respect it accords to the orders of the court.”
It added that effective functioning of courts depends on “swift obedience of the judgments and orders”, which is intrinsically linked to the rule of law.
Taking a firm step to ensure compliance, the High Court directed the Law Secretary to appear in person on April 27, 2026, and apprise the court of concrete steps being taken to ensure proper and timely assistance to government counsel.
The court clarified that the direction is aimed at ensuring systemic correction, noting that delays and non-compliance “defeat the very purpose of the directions issued by this court” and waste valuable judicial time.
