Jammu and Kashmir High Court hears objection to The Hindu newspaper report on leave of absence of judges

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has taken cognizance of a media report published in The Hindu newspaper and circulated on social media regarding the leave of a judge and referred the matter to the acting Chief Justice for consideration of criminal contempt proceedings.

The report published in The Hindu had suggested that the jurisdiction of National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Habeas Corpus cases had been reassigned due to an “unprecedented change” in the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan, and further implied that Justice Sreedharan had gone on leave in response to these changes.

Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Waniwho presided over the case, clarified that the roster changes were routine and were announced by the acting Chief Justice vide a notification dated 28 June 2024 for the period from 1 July 2024 to 28 September 2024.

According to the notification, cases, which included Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), were allocated to the Division Bench (DB-I) in the Srinagar wing of the High Court, headed by the Chief Justice (Acting). The adjustments were made as part of a standard administrative procedure to streamline the disposal of cases, particularly those related to national security and detention matters.

The court addressed the misrepresentation in the media report and stated: “The fact reported in the social media and the newspaper that the list of candidates of the bench headed by one of us (Atul Sreedharan-J) was changed mid-stream was false, malicious and contemptuous as it amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”

The judges stressed that the changes in the roster had been made to ensure expeditious proceedings on sensitive cases and that there had been no abrupt or irregular reassignment of cases.

Further, the court rejected the media portrayal of Justice Sreedharan’s leave which suggested that it was related to the change in duty roster. The judges clarified that Justice Sreedharan had taken medical leave on September 2, 2024, which had nothing to do with any administrative decision.

The court adopted a strong exception and noted: “So, this misrepresentation not only misleads the public but also damages the confidence in the judiciary. The reasons given in the social media post for why one of us (Atul Sreedharan-J) went on leave give the impression that the said judge went on leave in protest against a change in duty roster.”

The Court also found that such a conclusion would give rise to the false and harmful perception that the judge had a personal interest in the handling of certain cases.

In view of these distortions, the Supreme Court has referred the matter to the acting Chief Justice to initiate criminal contempt of court proceedings against the editors of The Hindu. The court also asked that Justice Sreedharan not be involved in any further hearings on the matter as he is directly involved in the issues covered in the media report.

Case Title: Syed Mehrajul Yasin v. Union of India & Ors

Click here to read/download the order