'Suppressing Material Facts Is Just Jugglery Not Advocacy': J&K High Court Cancels Reinstatement Order Of Ex-Constable For Hiding Crucial Facts From Court

The court, in a judgment passed by Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Choudhary, observed,

"Suppression of concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.".

The case involved Masarat Jan, who was appointed as a constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police in 1999. Jan was discharged from service in 1999 for unauthorized absence but was later reinstated on compassionate grounds. However, she again went absent without permission and submitted her resignation in 2002, citing domestic compulsions. The resignation was accepted by the authorities.

Seven years later, Jan filed a writ petition claiming she was forced to resign due to security threats. The court, without deciding the merits of the case, directed the authorities to consider her representation seeking a reconsideration of her resignation. The DG Police rejected the representation, and Jan filed a fresh writ petition challenging the rejection. This petition was dismissed by the writ court, whose order was later upheld by the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal.

Jan then filed a review petition against the original order directing the authorities to consider her representation. In the review petition, she claimed her resignation was not voluntary. The writ court allowed the review petition and ordered her reinstatement.

The State represented by Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Senior AAG appealed against the review order, arguing that Jan had concealed crucial facts from the court, including the rejection of her representation, the subsequent writ petition, and the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court agreed with the State and set aside the reinstatement order.

On the other side, Mr. Nissar Ahmad Bhat, representing Masarat Jan, contended that her resignation was not voluntary but made under duress due to security concerns. However, the court, after thorough examination, found this argument untenable in light of previous court rulings and upheld the dismissal of the plea.

In a scathing rebuke, the court underscored the importance of litigants presenting all facts transparently, without resorting to manipulation or misrepresentation. It stressed that such actions not only undermine the judicial process but also erode public trust in the legal system.

Emphasising probity in such matters Justice Chowdhary writing for the bench observed that litigants appearing before writ courts must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts.

"a litigant cannot be allowed to play hide and seek or to pick and choose the facts he/she likes to disclose and to suppress/conceal other facts.", the bench remarked.

The court noted that Jan had deliberately hidden important information from the court when dealing with the Review Petition. This information included the rejection of her representation by the Director General of Police, her filing of a subsequent writ petition, the judgment on that petition, and its upholding by the Division Bench on appeal.

The court stated that if these facts had been presented, it would have made a different decision.

While the Court dismissed Jan's plea for reinstatement, it did acknowledge her difficult situation and recommended that the authorities consider her for any available post in the J&K Police department.

Case Title: State of J&K Vs Masarat Jan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 152

Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting counsel appeared for the State, Mr. Nissar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate represented the respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment