Srinagar, Sep 02 :
In a move that has raised eyebrows across legal circles, all cases related to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Habeas Corpus, previously assigned to a double bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, have been abruptly reassigned to a newly constituted bench in Srinagar.
The change comes in the wake of a series of bold and incisive rulings by Justice Sreedharan that garnered attention for his fearless approach in several high-profile cases.
On August 31, an official communication altered a previously established roster that was set to remain in effect until September 28. Under the original schedule, NIA and Habeas Corpus cases were listed before the bench comprising Justices Sreedharan and Muhammad Yousuf Wani. The new order now directs that these cases be heard by a special division bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Mohammad Akram Chowdhary from September 5.
“It is hereby notified for the information of all the concerned that the hearing of the Division Bench cases pertaining to all NIA matters (After Notice) for admission, orders and hearing and all Habeas Corpus petitions (After Notice) for admission, orders and hearing shall now be taken up for hearing by the newly constituted Special Division Bench of Honourable Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammad Akram Chowdhary during 2nd half of 5th September, 2024,” reads the order.
Legal experts have noted that it is uncommon to shift cases midway from one
J&K: NIA, Habeas
bench to another, particularly in such a sweeping manner. The reassignment has prompted speculation about the reasons behind the decision, especially as Justice Sreedharan went on leave shortly after the roster change was announced.
Appointed to the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in April 2023, Justice Sreedharan quickly made a name for himself with his sharp observations and unflinching directives. His judgments have often been critical of investigative procedures, leading to significant consequences for the agencies involved.
In one notable ruling in July 2024, Justice Sreedharan imposed a Rs 10,000 fine on the District Magistrate of Jammu for the preventive detention of a local under the Public Safety Act (PSA). The judge condemned the magistrate’s report, stating that it “reflects twisted reasoning and a thought process deserving strong disapproval. It’s vague and the language used is intended to confuse rather than convince.”
Justice Sreedharan has also been vocal about the misuse of terms like “fundamentalist” in legal contexts. In a widely reported case, he challenged the labeling of a detainee as a fundamentalist, arguing that such terminology does not necessarily imply extremist or separatist tendencies. “A fundamentalist merely believes in the fundamentals of Islam and steadfastly follows them. It cannot negatively impact their personality. Being a fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with being an extremist or a separatist,” the judge noted.
Another significant judgment saw Justice Sreedharan granting bail to a policeman accused of murdering an innocent man and falsely presenting him as a militant. The case, which has dragged on for 17 years, has seen only 28 of the 72 witnesses examined. “This Court is astounded by the facts of this case,” Justice Sreedharan remarked, calling it a clear violation of Article 21 due to the delayed trial.
Justice Sreedharan’s assertive stance was further evident in his bail order for journalist Fahad Shah, who had been imprisoned for nearly 600 days. The judge criticised the investigating agencies for filing terror charges against Shah, the editor and founder of The Kashmir Walla news portal. “We are of the opinion that prima facie, an offence under Section 18 of the UAPA is not made out, as the Appellant’s actions do not fall within the definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA,” he ruled, highlighting the lack of evidence to support the charges.
