Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court has taken serious view of what he calls defiant attitude of the State official machinery towards the orders and instructions of the court issued on various cases from time to time. It is for the first time that censure has come from the Chief Justice, though no doubt in the past, the High Court has, in milder words and in subtle manner, said that the cooperation from the State officials needs to be streamlined. The Chief Justice has quoted the settled law which says that when the order of the court has become final, its implementation is mandatory.
It is worrisome for the civil society to know that the court has found the administration not cooperating in fullest measure. It is essentially a constitutional matter because the powers given to the judiciary are final and irrefutable as far as we observe democratic norms in the State. The normal course of things is that in case the Government is not convinced that justice has been done in a specific matter, it has the right to knock at the door of Apex Court and challenge the verdict of the High Court. That practice is nothing new or unknown. But to defy the orders of the court without seeking judicial remedy is willful disobedience of the law. The intensity of defiance of HC orders can be gauged from the fact that more than 1600 contempt petitions were filed during the current year so far.
The story of the case, recalled briefly, is that in a lawsuit the Advocate General of the State had stated in the court and in writing that the Government would consider opening Degree College in Majalta and some more towns. Since the statement was made by its accredited representative by word and in writing before the court, the Government was bound to honour its word and order opening of a college in Majalta, Udhampur. The first symptom of defiance by the officials was that the Education Department did not respond to at least three notices from the High Court in the case of opening a Degree College in Majalta. The Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice did not find officials argument tenable and said that the college had to come up in Majalta in accordance with the commitment made by the representative of the Government, namely the Advocate General sometimes back in the court.
The question is that the Government’s accredited representative made the commitment only after he was given the brief by the Government. He could not make such a commitment on his own. The Government must have thoroughly discussed the matter on its level before giving green signal to the Advocate General to make the commitment. This being the ground situation, why is the Government now backtracking?
It will be a sad day for the State if the Government embarks on total defiance of the court decisions in an arbitrary manner. That means one important organ of the State, namely the executive, chooses to be at loggerheads with other organ of the State meaning judiciary. It will lead to confusion and chaos. The Government cannot remain sustainable and it should be aware of what it is doing by defying the court orders. Our suggestion to the Government would be to honour the judiciary organ of the State as is stipulated in the Constitution and stop confrontational attitude towards it. The bureaucracy is not something untouchable; it is subservient to the law of the land.
Follow our WhatsApp channel