Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the matter and accordingly dismissed the petition as infructuous. The Court stated that "no fruitful purpose shall be served, if the petition at hand is decided on merits, as the same has been rendered infructuous due to subsequent events."

The Court was dealing with a public interest litigation seeking quashing of the nomination of certain individuals to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council. However, given the abolition of the Council pursuant to the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 and the expiration of nominated members' terms, the Bench declined to entertain the petition any further. The Court concluded that the adjudication would amount to an academic exercise consuming valuable judicial time without serving any practical outcome.

Also Read: Restoration Cannot Supersede Public Welfare Where Reversal Imposes Greater Ecological Harm | Supreme Court Quashes High Court Demolition Order | Preserves Recreational Park In Public Interest

The petition was instituted as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, seeking quashing of Notification/SRO No. 122 dated April 9, 2015, and Bulletin-II dated March 9, 2015. These official communications had resulted in the nomination of private respondents (respondents no. 6 to 13) as Members of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council.

The petitioner contested these nominations on several grounds. Firstly, it was alleged that the nominated individuals did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as prescribed under Sub Section 6 of Section 50 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Secondly, the petitioner asserted that the nominations violated the constitutional intention of ensuring due representation to socially and economically backward classes within the Legislative Council.

The specific reliefs sought included:

1. Issuance of a writ of Certiorari to quash the SRO and Bulletin whereby respondents no. 6 to 13 were nominated to the Legislative Council.

2. A Declaration declaring the nominations illegal, unconstitutional, unsustainable, null, and void.

3. Issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto treating the private respondents as usurpers to the constitutional public position.

4. A Mandamus directing the official respondents to ensure representation of socially and economically backward classes in accordance with constitutional mandates.

5. Any other appropriate reliefs as deemed just by the Court.

During the pendency of the proceedings, a significant statutory development occurred. With the enforcement of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019, effective from October 31, 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council ceased to exist. Section 14 of the Act provided only for a Legislative Assembly in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Consequently, the nomination of the concerned respondents also came to a natural end with the expiration of their respective terms. Despite these events rendering the original reliefs practically non-actionable, the petitioner persisted in seeking a full adjudication on the merits of the issues raised.

On July 27, 2023, the Court recorded that the petition appeared infructuous but granted an opportunity to the petitioner to clarify whether any live issues remained that warranted adjudication. This was done in view of the judicial reluctance to entertain purely academic exercises.

Subsequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on March 28, 2024. However, it was restored on April 29, 2024, based on the petitioner's submissions that vital legal questions still required determination irrespective of the Legislative Council's abolition.

The petitioner relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Sheodan Singh v. Mohan Lal Gautam, AIR 1969 SC 1024 and Loknath Padhan v. Birendra Kumar Sahu, AIR 1974 SC 505, to support his contention that certain cases should be adjudicated even if they appear moot due to subsequent developments.

On the other hand, Mr. U. K. Jalali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the private respondents, submitted that the petition was now infructuous due to the dissolution of the Legislative Council and the expiration of nominated members’ terms.

The Bench, while deliberating on the maintainability of the petition, first recorded the uncontested fact that the J&K Legislative Council was no longer in existence and the nominated respondents' terms had expired.

The Court observed, "Therefore, even if this petition is adjudicated on merits, it would have no repercussions in future."

The Bench noted that it had already expressed reservations about continuing with the matter in its earlier order dated July 27, 2023. The Court had then recorded that, "this Court is not expected to undertake any academic exercise, as cause of action does not survive any longer."

In response to the petitioner's reliance on the judgments in Sheodan Singh and Loknath Padhan, the Court distinguished those precedents. It stated, "The position might be different if the allegation against the respondent were of corrupt practice... The purity of elections is of utmost importance in a democratic set up... Those who had corrupted the course of an election are dealt with in accordance with law."

The Court further clarified that, "Here there is no charge of any corrupt practice against the respondent... This disqualification does not involve any act corrupting the course of an election. It has no other consequence than that of making the particular election void."

Citing the judgment in P.H. Pandian v. P. Veldurai, (2013) 14 SCC 685, the Court recorded that, "Even if the appellant succeeds on the issue, it would be of no consequence because fresh election has already been taken place and the exercise... would only be now of an academic exercise."

Also Read: Gold Smuggling Case Falls Apart | Delhi HC Upholds Acquittal Citing 'No Evidence Of Recovery' And 'Witnesses Made To Sign Prewritten Statements

Upholding the purpose of judicial economy, the Court stated, "It would be only an academic, time-consuming exercise in futility, without having any repercussions in future but of course resulting in wastage of precious judicial time."

In disposing of the matter, the Division Bench issued a directive:

"In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that no fruitful purpose shall be served, if the petition at hand is decided on merits, as the same has been rendered infructuous due to subsequent events noted as above, by us. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having been rendered infructuous."

The Court made no further directions or consequential orders.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Respondents: Mr. U. K. Jalali, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Jalali, Advocate; Ms. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. Siddhant Gupta, Advocate; Mr. Ajay Gandotra, Advocate

Case Title: Shah Mohd. Choudhary v. State of J&K and Others

Case Number: PIL No. 14/2015

Bench: Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal

[Read/Download order]