“Instead of disputing the controversial reservation policy in its affidavit the elected Government challenged the petitioner and henceforth went against its own stated position on reservations. Hence forth the said affidavit goes against the very spirit of constituting a cabinet Sub Committee for course correction on reservations.”
An affidavit filed by the Omar Abdullah led Jammu & Kashmir Government in the common High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Union Territories has gone against it’s own stated position over Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Policy approved and implemented by the Central Government early last year. The incumbent elected Government immediately after taking over the reigns of power in Jammu & Kashmir October last year in the very maiden session of the J&K UT assembly announced the formation of a Cabinet Sub Committee mandating it to look into the alleged imbalances in reservations and submit a report for course correction within six months. As a petition filed before the Common High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh challenged the reservation policy and the first response from the elected Government came through an affidavit. Surprisingly instead of disputing the controversial reservation policy in its affidavit the elected Government challenged the petitioner and henceforth went against its own stated position on reservations. Hence forth the said affidavit goes against the very spirit of constituting a cabinet Sub Committee for course correction on reservations. Keeping in view the sensitivities of the reservation policy it was for the elected Government to endorse its own stated position in the affidavit but having filed an affidavit against its own stated position the elected Government now talks about a course correction over the controversial affidavit filed before the top court of Jammu & Kashmir. In the very first instance spirits of morality and accountability demand that elected Government seeks an explanation from its counsel who has filed the affidavit and take an appropriate action against the said counsel for going against the spirit of the decision taken on reservations months ago.
“Finally the legal and administrative handling of the case has come into question not only from rivals of the ruling party but also from the legal experts keeping a vigil on the court proceedings of the case pending disposal before the High Court. For all practical purposes the final judgment of the High Court will have a huge impact even on the final recommendations of cabinet Sub Committee constituted by the elected Government for looking into the alleged imbalances in the said reservation policy and submitting a report within six months from the date of its formation.”
So for Government has neither sought any explanation from the said counsel nor submitted a counter affidavit before the High Court. Now legal formality for the Government is not to file a counter affidavit but to withdraw its first affidavit and submit a fresh affidavit with the permission of the High Court which is to be sought by giving some legal reasons for withdrawing the affidavit. For all obvious reasons the counsel who submitted the affidavit won’t have gone against the stated position of the elected Government if he would have been briefed about the stated position of the elected Government on the matter and its implications on the final judgement of the High Court on J&K Reservation Policy. Finally the legal and administrative handling of the case has come into question not only from rivals of the ruling party but also from the legal experts keeping a vigil on the court proceedings of the case pending disposal before the High Court. For all practical purposes the final judgment of the High Court will have a huge impact even on the final recommendations of cabinet Sub Committee constituted by the elected Government for looking into the alleged imbalances in the said reservation policy and submitting a report within six months from the date of its formation.
