J&K Court Initiates Criminal Contempt Against IAS Officer Accused Of Harassing Judge Who Attached His Salary For Non-Compliance With Orders

Sub-Judge Fayaz Ahmad Qureshi presided over an execution petition related to a judgment and decree dated October 31, 2022. The decree-holders had sought the execution of this decree, which had not been stayed, leading the court to order the attachment of salaries of the judgement debtors, including Deputy Commissioner Shyambir.

The court had ordered the attachment of the salaries of the judgment debtors as they had failed to comply with the judgment, leaving the decree-holders waiting for about 18 months without any resolution.                                   

Following these directions, the Deputy Commissioner allegedly retaliated by misusing his official position to harass the presiding judge. This included unauthorized visits to the judge's property by government officials under the Deputy Commissioner's direction.

Retaliation against judicial order

The order revealed that Deputy Commissioner Shyambir had reacted adversely to the court's ruling by attempting to personally attack the presiding judge. It stated that Shyambir tried to "scandalize him and weaken him by manipulation and fabrication” and by trying to "implicate the Presiding Officer."

The court also highlighted the “misuse of official machinery” for personal vendetta by the Deputy Commissioner. As per the judicial order, immediately after the previous order was passed, the Deputy Commissioner had "devoted time in tracing out the documents of the property, which the Presiding Officer lawfully holds."

Despite finding no fault with the property's purchase, he had constituted a team led by Naib Tehsildar including three Patwaris. This was done by an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, Ganderbal under the Deputy Commissioner's direction, the court stated.

The judicial order pointed out that the committee was constituted by Deputy Commissioner Shyambir with "oblique and malafide motives and evil intention" as a reaction to a lawful order passed by the Presiding Officer. This action was seen as an attempt to undermine the judge's authority and retaliate against the court's decision.

Expressing serious concern over the Deputy Commissioner's response to the judicial order, the judge stated that the actions of Deputy Commissioner Shyambir amounted to criminal contempt as such actions by the executive "have the potential to lower the authority of this court".

Consequently, the court initiated a preliminary inquiry and issued a show-cause notice to the Deputy Commissioner, as required by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and relevant High Court rules.

This includes Rule 7(b) and Notification No. 34 (April 25, 2018) of The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which mandate a preliminary inquiry by the subordinate court before making a reference to the High Court for initiating proceedings against the contemnor.

The order specifically instructed the Deputy Commissioner to "remain present before the court to show cause as to why a reference be not made to Hon'ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh for initiating contempt proceedings in terms of Contempt of Courts Act."

The court also found it necessary to inform the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The order stated, "It is also deemed to be appropriate to place the matter before Ld. Chief Secretary, UT of J&K for administrative action in accordance with law and appropriate proceedings in accordance with Government Conduct Rules, 1971."

Additionally, the court deemed it essential for the Deputy Commissioner to be transferred from District Ganderbal to another location to prevent further interference or manipulation of evidence related to the contempt proceedings.

Risks faced by judges in adversarial judicial system

The judicial order stated that the court “felt compelled” to take action under the given circumstances "to uphold the Majesty of Law and maintain the dignity and independence of the Court." The Sub Judge noted that these measures were necessary to ensure that the judicial process remains free from interference and to protect the integrity of the court.

The court highlighted the risks faced by judges when their decisions go against the executive. It noted that "if an order goes against the executive, it may annoy some functionaries and may invite uncalled for trouble and problem for the presiding officer."

The judicial order emphasized the fundamental nature of the justice system, describing it as "an adversarial setup where the courts act as independent and neutral person/umpire to consider the merit after hearing both sides and then adjudicate upon rights and duties of the parties."

It highlighted that in such a system, it is inevitable that a judge, by making decisions, may create adversaries.

However, the judge opined that such acts, when pursued by the executive, could potentially lower a judge's morale and deter them from ruling against the state to avoid retaliation. The judicial order asserted that "this can happen only in a lawless country and such acts cannot be tolerated in India."

The order also stressed that in scenarios where judicial independence is threatened, "the courts cannot afford to look for any external support from the executive or other authorities but has to eliminate such mis-adventurous and illegal acts by exercising its powers of contempt to maintain its dignity, impartiality and independence."

The matter is set to be reviewed further, with the Deputy Commissioner required to respond to the show-cause notice issued by the court.

Case Title: Noor Mohammad Gojar Chichi Vs State through Commissioner Secretary Revenue

Click Here To Read/Download Order