J&K&L High Court Flags Persistent Non-Filing Of Replies By Government; Seeks Presence Of Law Secretary
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has flagged the continued failure of Government authorities to file replies and assist the Court effectively, observing that despite repeated directions, no concrete mechanism has been put in place to address the issue, thereby hampering the justice delivery system.
The Court was hearing a writ petition wherein, despite multiple opportunities, the respondents failed to file their response and produce the record, leading to closure of their right to file a reply.
A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed: “Despite the number of directions issued by this Court regarding non-filing of the response as also non-appearance of the counsel in the matters concerning Government, no effective and concrete mechanism is being put in place so as to render effective assistance on behalf of UT…”
The petition in question was filed in June 2023, and several opportunities were granted to the respondents to file their response. Even a “last opportunity” was granted; however, no reply was filed by the Government, resulting in the closure of their right to file a reply.
Subsequently, despite specific directions to produce the record, the respondents neither filed the response nor produced the record, and there was no effective representation on their behalf. The Court noted that such conduct demonstrated disregard for judicial orders and a casual approach towards Court proceedings.
The Court took a serious note of the recurring issue of non-filing of replies and lack of coordination by Government authorities, highlighting multiple facets of the problem.
It further noted that such conduct is not isolated but widespread, as “in a large number of cases involving the Government, replies are not being filed within the stipulated time, despite repeated opportunities being granted.”
The Court, while taking note that in the case at hand “the respondents have not bothered to comply with the orders passed by this Court from time to time… and have shown scant respect to the orders of this Court”, further held that such an approach “not only contributes to the mounting backlog of cases, but also seriously impedes the efficient administration of justice”.
Lack of Administrative Coordination & Need for Institutional Mechanisms
The Court stressed that even repeated communications by Law Officers were not yielding results, highlighting that “the Law Officers have been consistently issuing communications/reminders, yet the para-wise reply is/are not being given”, resulting in the concerned counsel not being “in a position to file the response well in time.”
The Court directed that “the Secretary of Law shall fix the responsibility on such officers, who are remiss…”
The Court, while making these observations, emphasised the necessity of a structured mechanism to ensure effective representation of the Government, identifying key components required for such a system, including “Prompt transmission of records to the concerned counsel; Timely preparation and filing of replies/Objections; Effective monitoring of pending cases; and Fixation of responsibility upon officers…”
It underscored that “such a mechanism would not only facilitate effective representation of the Government… but also obviate the necessity of passing coercive orders… and safeguard the public interest.”
Rule Of Law and Constitutional Obligation
The Court placed the issue within the broader framework of constitutional governance and the rule of law, observing that “timely compliance with the orders and directions of the Court is not a matter of discretion, but a constitutional imperative.”
Further emphasising the consequences of non-compliance, the Court added that “any delay or indifference… strikes at the very root of the rule of law and has the tendency to erode public confidence in the administration of justice.”
“The Union Territory and its authorities, being vital stakeholders in the justice delivery system, are under a bounden obligation to act in aid of the Court and to ensure the expeditious culmination of proceedings, … any conduct on the part of the State that impedes or obstructs the timely disposal of cases is wholly impermissible and undermines the faith of the common man in the efficacy and credibility of the judicial process”, the Bench remarked.
The Court also cautioned against executive inaction, underscoring that “judicial orders cannot be rendered nugatory by executive inaction or indifference.”
Repeated Non-Compliance & Direction for Personal Appearance
Referring to its earlier directions in Madan Lal & Ors vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors (2023), the Court noted that the issue persists despite prior judicial intervention, observing that “the situation remains the same, with repeated instances of non-compliance persisting unabated, thereby reflecting a lack of seriousness on the part of the concerned authorities…”
It also deprecated the “lackadaisical approach of the respondents in not filing the reply timely”, while further stressing that the “respondents have to evolve an effective measure for assisting well in time, so that the justice delivery system is not hampered and the Court time is not wasted on gaining opportunities without any justifiable cause”.
In view of continued non-compliance, the Court, while stating that it is “left with no option but to seek the personal appearance of Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs”, accordingly directed the Secretary to appear in person to “apprise this Court of the steps being taken to ensure that cases concerning the Government are properly defended…”
Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to forward the order for necessary action.
“The Secretary, Law shall examine the issue and take necessary steps for putting in place and establishing an effective mechanism to ensure timely assistance to the Government counsel by the concerned officers and strict compliance with Court directions in all matters concerning the Government”, Justice Nargal concluded.
The matter has been listed for further proceedings on the 26th of April.
Case Title: Ali Mohammad Wani Vs Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)