Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has taken a stern view of “scandalous and wholly unsubstantiated” allegations by a group of senior citizens against the Presiding Officer of the Court of Sub-Judge Pattan and the Principal District Judge, Baramulla, and directed the petitioners to tender an unconditional apology.
The matter arose from a transfer petition filed by Assad Ullah Bhat and others, senior citizens, who had sought transfer of their civil case from the Court of Sub-Judge Pattan to another court of competent jurisdiction.
In their petition, the petitioners made sweeping allegations, claiming that the Presiding Officer of Sub-Judge Pattan was “directly under the influence” of the Principal District Judge, Baramulla, and further alleged that the latter was “hand-in-glove” with one of the defendants in the case.
The petitioners went on to state that due to this alleged nexus, they apprehended a “casualty of justice” at the hands of the Sub-Judge, asserting that the Presiding Officer had exhibited bias and prejudice against them.
They pleaded that their confidence in the judicial process had been shaken and sought transfer of the case to ensure fairness, and restore their faith in the system.
However, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing the matter, observed that the allegations were made without any supporting material or evidence.
When confronted, counsel for the petitioners, advocate M Sultan—who had drafted the petition—failed to substantiate the claims even at the threshold and sought permission to withdraw the plea unconditionally.
The bench, however, refused to allow such withdrawal, holding that litigants cannot be permitted to escape the consequences of making reckless and defamatory allegations against judicial officers.
“Permitting such a course would allow them to circumvent judicial scrutiny,” it said.
In its order, the court condemned the growing tendency of litigants to level baseless and scandalous allegations against members of the judiciary. It emphasized that such accusations are not merely personal in nature but amount to an attack on the dignity, independence, and institutional integrity of the judiciary.
“The sanctity of judicial proceedings cannot be permitted to be sullied by reckless pleadings which seek to malign the judicial process,” the court noted, adding that such conduct undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Relying on settled legal principles and Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that disparaging remarks against judges strike at the root of judicial independence and must be dealt with sternly.
It also stressed its constitutional duty to protect judicial officers from unfounded aspersions, warning that allowing such allegations to go unchecked would have a chilling effect on the functioning of courts and erode institutional credibility.
Consequently, Justice Nargal directed all petitioners to file separate affidavits within one week, tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology, demonstrating genuine remorse, and undertaking to refrain from making such allegations in future.
While refraining from initiating coercive action against advocate M. Sultan in view of his standing at the Bar, the judge issued a stern caution, emphasizing that pleadings must be drafted with responsibility, verification, and due circumspection.
The matter has been listed for further proceedings on May 6, 2026, for consideration of the apology affidavits.
