The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has taken a firm stand against unsubstantiated allegations made against judicial officers, refusing to allow withdrawal of a transfer petition and directing the petitioners to file an unconditional apology.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a transfer petition filed by Assadullah Bhat and others, who are senior citizens, seeking transfer of their case from the Court of Sub-Judge, Pattan.
In their petition, the litigants alleged that the Presiding Officer of the Sub-Judge’s court was acting under the influence of the Principal District Judge, Baramulla, and expressed apprehension of bias and injustice.
However, during the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners was unable to substantiate these serious claims when questioned by the Court.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Extends Interim Bail to Asaram Till May 25 or Judgment, Whichever Earlier
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal noted that the allegations made in the petition were “scandalous and wholly unsubstantiated.” The Court expressed concern over the growing tendency among litigants to level baseless accusations against judicial officers without any supporting material.
“The Court cannot permit litigants to make reckless allegations and then escape scrutiny by simply withdrawing the petition,” the bench observed.
The judge emphasized that such allegations are not merely personal attacks but strike at the very foundation of the judiciary.
“They constitute an affront to the dignity, independence, and institutional integrity of the judiciary,” the Court said.
The Court also referred to past rulings of the Supreme Court, reiterating that unfounded allegations against judges can damage public confidence in the justice system and must be dealt with strictly.
Despite the petitioners’ request to withdraw the plea after being unable to defend their claims, the Court declined to grant permission.
Justice Nargal made it clear that allowing withdrawal in such circumstances would enable parties to avoid consequences for making serious and baseless accusations.
“Permitting such a course would amount to allowing them to escape the consequences of making reckless allegations, which is wholly impermissible in law,” the Court stated.
Taking a measured approach, the Court directed the petitioners to file separate affidavits tendering an unconditional apology. These affidavits must reflect genuine remorse and include an undertaking to refrain from making such allegations in the future.
The Court granted one week’s time for compliance.
The bench also commented on the role of the petitioners’ counsel, noting that greater caution and responsibility were expected, especially given his experience at the Bar.
While refraining from passing any adverse order against the advocate at this stage, the Court issued a stern warning.
“The pleadings must be drafted with due care, responsibility, and proper verification,” the Court remarked, cautioning that any repetition of such conduct may invite appropriate legal action.
Considering the circumstances, the Court kept the matter open for the limited purpose of receiving the petitioners’ apology. The case has been listed for further hearing on May 6, 2026.
The High Court refused to allow withdrawal of the transfer petition, directed the petitioners to file unconditional apology affidavits within one week, and cautioned both litigants and counsel against making unverified allegations against judicial officers.
Case Details
Case Title: Assadullah Bhat & Others vs Gul Dar & Others
Case Number: TrP (C) 4/2026
Judge: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
Decision Date: April 29, 2026
