The recent expression of displeasure by the Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court over the persistent absence of state counsel is both significant and telling. The issue, raised during a hearing, encapsulates a broader problem affecting the administration of justice in the Union Territory. The DB has rightfully taken a firm stance on this matter, underscoring a systemic inefficiency that has plagued the court for over a year. The current practice of assigning counsels to specific departments rather than to specific courts is the root cause. This has led to frequent instances where counsels are unable to attend hearings because they are engaged in another court, representing the same department. Such a system, while perhaps designed with the intent of fostering departmental expertise, has inadvertently created a bottleneck in the judicial process. The repeated absence of counsels has not only frustrated the court but also delayed justice, which is, as they say, justice denied.
The DB’s directive to assign counsels to specific courts with the flexibility to call upon specialised counsels for exceptional cases is a pragmatic solution. It streamlines the process and minimises the chances of adjournments due to the absence of a state counsel. By implementing this, the Court aims to restore efficiency and ensure that hearings can proceed as scheduled without unnecessary delays. Moreover, the DB’s warning of imposing costs on the state for non-compliance is a necessary deterrent. A financial penalty, though modest, sends a clear message about the seriousness of the Court’s directives and the importance of compliance. This move, while stringent, is a step towards ensuring accountability and adherence to judicial schedules. The authorities must heed this directive and implement the necessary changes swiftly.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
