Advocates Must Desist From Making Unfounded & Scandalous Allegations In Pleadings Against Judicial Officers: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a transfer petition wherein serious allegations had been levelled against judicial officers without any supporting material.

A Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing the matter, observed that, “when the learned counsel for petitioners, … who is the author of the present transfer petition containing the scandalous allegations levelled against the judicial officers, was confronted with the averments contained in the transfer petition, he was unable to substantiate the same even at the threshold, … and sought leave to withdraw the present petition unconditionally”.

The Bench, while stating that it was “not inclined to grant such leave”, issued a “clear and unequivocal caution to all litigants and members of the Bar to desist from making such unfounded and scandalous allegations against judicial officers”.

The matter arose after the petitioners approached the High Court seeking transfer of a case pending before a subordinate court, alleging bias and influence on the part of the Presiding Officer and the Principal District Judge.

The allegations, as extracted in the order, suggested that the Presiding Officer was acting under the influence of a superior judicial authority and that there was a likelihood of injustice.

Upon perusal, the Court noted that such allegations were serious in nature and directly impinged upon the integrity of judicial officers, yet were unsupported by any material on record.

At the outset, the High Court expressed concern over the increasing tendency to incorporate scandalous and unverified allegations in pleadings, particularly when directed against members of the judiciary. It observed that such averments are not merely personal attacks but constitute an affront to the institutional integrity of the justice delivery system.

The Court noted that when the learned counsel for the petitioners, who had authored the pleadings, was confronted with the contents, he failed to substantiate the allegations even at the threshold and sought permission to withdraw the petition unconditionally. Rejecting such a course, the Court held that litigants and counsel cannot be permitted to evade scrutiny and consequences after making reckless allegations.

In this context, the Court observed that “permitting such a course would amount to allowing them to escape the consequences of making reckless, scandalous, and unsubstantiated allegations, which is wholly impermissible in law.”

The Court further relied on precedents of the Supreme Court to underline that scandalous allegations against judicial officers erode public confidence and have the potential to destabilise the administration of justice. It noted that such conduct, if unchecked, would embolden similar practices and impair the dignity of judicial proceedings.

While specifically referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in N. Peddi Raju and Others, In Re (2025), Justice Nargal reiterated that “lawyers before subscribing their autographs to a pleading making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a Judge ought to think about the serious repercussions of the same.”

The Court also emphasised the professional responsibility of the concerned Advocate, observing that greater circumspection was expected from a counsel of standing and experience while drafting pleadings. It held that “the conduct exhibited is not commensurate with the standards expected of an advocate of such standing.”

The Court reiterated that pleadings must be drafted with due care, responsibility, and verification, stating that “the sanctity of judicial proceedings cannot be permitted to be sullied by reckless pleadings which, under the guise of advocacy, seek to malign the judicial process”.

Any repetition of such conduct without any basis or material, the Court cautioned, “shall invite appropriate action in accordance with law”.

“Judicial officers cannot be expected to discharge their duties with the requisite independence, impartiality, and fearlessness if they are compelled to function under the constant spectre of unfounded aspersions upon their character and conduct”, the Bench further stressed.

While the Court noted the seriousness of the conduct, it refrained from passing coercive or adverse orders against the counsel at this stage, having regard to his experience at the Bar. However, it issued a stern and unequivocal caution for the future.

The Court declined to permit withdrawal of the petition at the threshold in view of the serious allegations made, and directed the petitioners to file unconditional apologies demonstrating genuine remorse.

The matter was kept pending for the limited purpose of considering such an apology, while reiterating that any recurrence of similar conduct would be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law.

The matter was listed for continuation on May 6th 2026.

Case Title: Assadullah Bhat & Ors. v. Gul Dar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment