SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a tribunal order imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 on a senior advocate without giving him an opportunity to be heard, holding that the decision violated the principles of natural justice.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice MA Chowdhary passed the order on October 21, 2026, while allowing a writ petition filed by Jahangir Iqbal Ganai in WP(C) No. 3283/2026.
The court observed that the tribunal’s decision was contrary to law and that the imposition of costs without hearing the senior advocate amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice.
The Bench noted that it had, through an order dated October 13, sought to resolve the dispute through mediation. For this purpose, both members of the tribunal and the petitioner had been directed to appear personally before the judges in their chambers.
While Ganai appeared as directed, the two tribunal members did not attend despite having been served notices personally, the court recorded. An attempt by the tribunal’s Registry to facilitate their participation through video conferencing also failed, as neither member responded to telephone calls.
The Bench observed that the tribunal members appeared unwilling to cooperate with the court’s attempt to resolve the controversy.
Examining the order under challenge, the judges found that the Rs 10,000 cost had been imposed on the senior advocate without affording him an opportunity to present his side. The Bench further remarked that the dispute was a minor matter that could have been resolved in open court.
The High Court observed that heated exchanges between the Bar and the Bench could sometimes occur during arguments. However, it said, judges should exercise restraint and avoid escalating such disagreements into contempt proceedings against advocates or imposing costs on them.
The judges noted that greater restraint and maturity on the part of the tribunal members could have prevented the situation from escalating to the issuance of a contempt notice against the senior advocate.
At the same time, the Bench emphasised that advocates, particularly senior advocates, also carry a greater responsibility to preserve the dignity and decorum of the court. It observed that differences in perception should not be allowed to create an unpleasant atmosphere or widen divisions between the Bar and the Bench.
The court declined to elaborate further on the dispute and decided to close the matter. It quashed the tribunal’s order, describing it as contrary to law and in clear breach of the principles of natural justice, and allowed the writ petition accordingly.
