Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, dismissed a special leave petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against Abdul Rehman Khanday and others. The court observed that the case demonstrated a prolonged and unjustified delay by state authorities in complying with a High Court order issued in 2007. The court further noted that the failure of the officials to act within a reasonable time had led to unnecessary hardship for the respondents, who were daily wage workers. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the imposition of symbolic costs by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and directed the pending contempt proceedings to be expedited.

The case originated from a judgment passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on December 4, 2024, in a Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioners, representing the Union Territory, sought special leave to appeal against the High Court’s decision, contending that there were legal and procedural grounds to challenge the findings. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in the arguments presented and dismissed the petition.

Also Read: "Procedure is the Handmaid of Justice": Supreme Court Directs Swift Execution of Decree, Rejects Objections Raised at Execution Stage

The respondents, daily wage workers, had initially approached the High Court in 2007, seeking relief against what they claimed was arbitrary and prolonged inaction by state authorities in implementing their legal rights. The Single Judge of the High Court had ruled in their favor on May 3, 2007. However, the state officials failed to comply with the order for nearly sixteen years.

During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the respondents’ counsel contended that the authorities had engaged in repeated harassment by passing cryptic orders that failed to address the substantive issues decided by the High Court in 2007. They argued that such actions demonstrated a disregard for judicial authority and the rule of law. The petitioners, representing the Union Territory, maintained that their actions were justified based on administrative and procedural complexities.

The Supreme Court recorded its concern over the prolonged delay and criticized the conduct of the state authorities. The bench stated:

“At the very outset, we are constrained to observe that the present case is a glaring and textbook example of obstination exhibited by the state officials/authorities, who consider themselves to be above and beyond the reach of law.”

The court further stated that the failure of the authorities to act in compliance with the High Court’s directive was not merely a matter of delay but also an indication of an ongoing pattern of neglect that had adversely affected the respondents. It observed:

“The inaction of the officers of the petitioner - Union Territory, who took about 16 years to comply with a simpliciter High Court order passed on 03.05.2007, is shocking and prima facie contemptuous.”

The judgment also noted that the respondents, being daily wage workers, had been subjected to unnecessary hardship. The court remarked that the actions of the state authorities reflected an approach that overlooked the true intent of the High Court’s order. It recorded:

“The poor respondents, being daily wage workers, have been repeatedly harassed by the petitioners by passing cryptic orders, thereby overlooking the true import and spirit of the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge.”

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, including the imposition of symbolic costs. It noted that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court’s ruling and observed that the facts of the case warranted strict disciplinary action against the delinquent officers. The bench stated:

“In actuality, we consider the instant case fit for imposing exemplary costs on the delinquent officers, besides also recommending strong disciplinary actions against them. However, we presently refrain ourselves from doing so, keeping in view the fact that the contempt proceedings are still pending before the learned Single Judge.”

Also Read: Orissa High Court : Intra-Court Appeals Are Not Maintainable Against Orders Under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act

Acknowledging the pending contempt proceedings before the High Court, the Supreme Court directed that these proceedings be expedited. It requested the Single Judge to conduct weekly hearings to ensure that judicial authority was upheld. The order stated:

“We, consequently, request the learned Single Judge to take up the contempt proceedings on a weekly basis and ensure that majesty and sanctity of law is well maintained.”

As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, effectively upholding the High Court’s decision and directing that the matter be resolved through the ongoing contempt proceedings.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners (Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.):

• Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Advocate

• Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Advocate-on-Record

For the Respondents (Abdul Rehman Khanday & Ors.):

• Mr. Soayib Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record

• Ms. Chetna Alagh, Advocate

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Abdul Rehman Khanday & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: SC 1323
Case Number: SLP(C) No. 5873 of 2025
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

[Read/Download order]