Scandalous Allegations Against Judges Draw Jammu Kashmir High Court Rebuke: Petitioners To Apologise | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, has strongly censured petitioners in a transfer petition for levelling “scandalous and wholly unsubstantiated” allegations against judicial officers, and directed them to file unconditional apologies within one week.

The matter arose in TrP(C) No. 4/2026, titled Assadullah Bhat and Others vs Guldar and Others, where the petitioners, including senior citizens, sought transfer of their case from the Court of Sub-Judge Pattan. In their plea, the petitioners alleged that the presiding officer was under the influence of the Principal District Judge, Baramulla, and expressed apprehension of injustice.

During the hearing, the Court noted that the allegations, reproduced in the petition, were made without any supporting material. When questioned, counsel for the petitioners, MS Sultan, was unable to substantiate the claims and sought permission to withdraw the petition unconditionally.

The Court, however, declined the request, observing that permitting withdrawal would allow the petitioners to evade scrutiny and consequences arising from reckless pleadings. It held that such conduct is impermissible and must be dealt with strictly.

In a detailed order, the Court emphasised that baseless allegations against judicial officers undermine the dignity, independence, and institutional integrity of the judiciary. It observed that such practices, if unchecked, could erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Referring to precedents of the Supreme Court, including MB Sanghi vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Asharam M Jain vs AT Gupta, the Court reiterated that disparaging remarks against judges strike at the foundation of judicial independence and cannot be tolerated.

The Court further cautioned litigants and members of the Bar against making unfounded and scandalous allegations, warning that any repetition would invite action in accordance with law.

Taking note of the conduct in the present case, the Court directed all petitioners to file separate affidavits tendering unconditional apologies, expressing genuine remorse, and undertaking not to repeat such conduct. The affidavits are to be filed within one week.

While refraining from passing adverse orders against counsel MS Sultan at this stage, the Court issued a stern caution, stating that pleadings must be drafted with due care and responsibility, and any recurrence of such conduct would attract appropriate action.

The matter has been listed for further proceedings on May 6, 2026, in the supplementary cause list.