The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, through Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, has sent out a strong reminder to the judiciary that “Courts’ legitimacy must be established on reasons.” The court has quashed a cryptic and unreasoned order passed by the Municipal Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), terming it legally unsustainable.
In a case arising from a property dispute in Umarabad, HMT Srinagar, the petitioners, Hakim Nazir Ahmad and Abdul Rashid Kirmani, sought relief under Section 151 CPC to restore an iron gate that allegedly existed since before 2009. They claimed the gate, installed at the entrance of their shared private pathway, was forcefully demolished by Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) staff, allegedly in collusion with local land mafia, despite a standing interim order dated 24 October 2024.
Read also: Jammu & Kashmir Apni Party Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
Their application was dismissed by the Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Srinagar, through a one-line order:
“Heard and perused the record. For the reasons stated in the order of the application IA/3, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. Disposed of and made part of the main file.”
Justice Koul, in a detailed judgment dated 07 March 2025, found this reasoning wholly inadequate. The High Court held that such a cryptic dismissal failed to reflect judicial application of mind and violated the principles of natural justice.
Read also: J&K High Court: Able-Bodied Adult Daughters Not Entitled to Maintenance from Father
Quoting legal thinkers like Henry S. Richardson and Amy Gutmann, the court reiterated that public reasoning in judicial decisions is central to democratic legitimacy. Justice Koul remarked:
“Judges are heroes of reason-giving. Courts must speak in a language that reveals their judicial thought process.”
He further emphasized that Section 151 CPC exists to empower courts to act in the interest of justice and prevent misuse of judicial process. It recognizes the court’s inherent authority to intervene in exceptional situations to ensure fair play.
“Section 151 CPC does not formulate a new doctrine but legislatively recognizes the well-known principle that courts have inherent power to act ex debito justitiae—to do real justice.”
The petitioners approached the Trial Court seeking restoration of an iron gate which, they asserted, had existed since before 2009 on their private land. They alleged that SMC staff, under the influence of local land mafia, demolished the gate using electric cutters, despite a restraining order passed on 24 October 2024.
Their application argued that:
- The gate was installed on private proprietary land.
- No construction was being undertaken—existing structures were decades old.
- The demolition was unlawful, done without notice or hearing.
- Their constitutional rights to privacy and dignified life were being violated.
They sought an order under Section 151 CPC directing the restoration of the gate and enforcement of the interim injunction already in place.
However, the Trial Court dismissed their application without issuing notice to the opposite party and without addressing any of the claims in detail.
Justice Koul observed that the Trial Court failed on several counts:
- It did not discuss the petitioners’ pleadings.
- It ignored the context and legal implications under Section 151 CPC.
- It did not issue notice to the respondents before passing the order.
- The order lacked basic reasoning, violating the judicial duty to explain decisions.
He quoted the Supreme Court’s landmark observations in Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India (1998):
“The litigant deserves to understand why he lost the case. The quality of justice depends on the reasoning provided in the judgment.”
Referring to Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd v. Om Prakash Jalan (2013), the High Court noted that:
“Judgments must be effective, practical and provide a workable remedy… Without clear reasoning, decisions are legally unsustainable.”
Justice Koul also cited UPSC v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi (2021), where the Supreme Court had warned against the rising trend of issuing judgments that are merely a "veneer of judicial reasoning."
The High Court concluded that the order passed by the Trial Court was:
“Cryptic, non-speaking, and showed total non-application of mind.”
It ruled the order legally invalid and set it aside. Justice Koul directed the Trial Court to consider the application afresh after receiving objections from the other side and after properly hearing both parties.
In a significant move, the High Court also ordered that:
“The Presiding Officer who passed the impugned order be deputed to the J&K Judicial Academy for a refresher course.”
The Registry was instructed to place a copy of the order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for further necessary action.
In an extraordinary move, the Court also made an administrative recommendation,
The Registry was directed to place a copy of the judgment before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate action in this regard.
Case Title: Hakim Nazir Ahmad Vs Commissioner SMC
