The latest attempt by the Jammu and Kashmir Government to tighten litigation management reflects a familiar pattern-strong intent backed by detailed guidelines, yet shadowed by a history of uneven implementation. The new framework, with its multi-tier monitoring, fixed accountability and strict timelines, is clearly designed to address systemic weaknesses that have repeatedly cost the administration both legally and administratively. For years, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has flagged routine adjournments sought by departmental counsels without valid justification. Despite repeated judicial observations and earlier circulars, meaningful behavioural change within departments has remained limited. The inability to challenge adverse orders within limitation periods is another recurring failure, often resulting in dismissal of appeals on technical grounds rather than on the merits.
The problem is neither new nor isolated. Multiple past efforts-including SOPs, monitoring mechanisms and litigation tracking instructions-have aimed at streamlining case handling. Yet, the ground reality shows that litigation continues to be treated as a secondary administrative function rather than a core governance responsibility. The law is clear: under the framework shaped by statutes like the Limitation Act and reinforced by rulings of the Supreme Court of India, administrative delay is no longer accepted as a routine justification. Governments are expected to function with efficiency comparable to private litigants. A key misconception within departments is the over-reliance on standing councils. The substantive strength of any case depends on timely inputs, complete records and clear instructions from the concerned department. Failure at either end-legal representation or departmental response-inevitably weakens the case and exposes the Government to adverse orders.
The new guidelines issued through the Department of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs, J&K, are, therefore, a welcome attempt to “bell the cat” by fixing responsibility at multiple levels. The introduction of fortnightly reviews, digital monitoring and post-sanction tracking could potentially reduce procedural lapses if implemented sincerely. Yet, effectiveness will ultimately depend on administrative will. But whether this becomes a turning point or just another circular loop in files will only be tested over time. For now, the message is clear: litigation discipline is no longer optional-it is central to effective governance.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
