A writ petition was filed before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court against an order whereby a cost of Rs. 10,000/- had been imposed upon a senior counsel without even affording him an opportunity to be heard.
By an order dated 13-10-2026, a Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice MA Chowdhary desired to resolve the controversy through mediation and had directed both Members of the Tribunal as well as the petitioner to appear in person in the Judge’s chamber. The petitioner was present but the Members were not present. The Court even attempted to provide a link so that the Members could appear virtually, but could not succeed as both Members failed to respond to the calls of the Registry’s Tribunal.
Finding that the Members did not wish to cooperate, the Court went through the impugned order and found the same in complete breach of principles of natural justice, noting that the controversy was based on a very small matter which ought to have been sorted out in the open Court.
Although the Court noted that it is not uncommon that during the course of arguments sometimes there is heated exchanges between the Bar and the Bench, it was also said that the Bench should refrain from escalating it to the level of initiating contempt proceedings against advocates of imposing costs on them. The Court stated that an effort should always be made to avoid such an undesirable situation.
It was stated that the unpleasant situation leading to issuance of contempt notice against the senior advocate could have been avoided had the Tribunal Members shown some level of restraint and maturity. However, the Court also stated that senior advocates have a higher responsibility to ensure that the dignity and decorum of the Court is maintained at all costs and that small differences in perception do not escalate into creating an unsavoury atmosphere driving a wedge between the Bar and the Bench.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
