A Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, declined to entertain an application filed by two Indian Administrative Service officers seeking a direction to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to consider their representations before deciding on a proposal for grant of prosecution sanction in the Arms Licence Scam.
Background of the Application
The applicants moved the High Court seeking intervention and impleadment in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Arms Licence Scam. Through their counsel, Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan assisted by Advocate Rahul Sharma, the officers contended that the doctrine of deemed sanction could not be applied mechanically. They argued that both the authorities and the Court were required to undertake a case-by-case assessment before arriving at a decision on the CBI's proposal for prosecution sanction.
The applicants sought limited relief, specifically a direction that the competent authority consider their representations prior to taking a final decision on the sanction proposal. They submitted that unless the Court issued such a direction, there was an apprehension that the respondents would not apply their mind properly to the representations.
Court's Observations on Apprehension of Bias
The Division Bench was not persuaded by the submission that a specific judicial direction was necessary to ensure proper consideration of the applicants' representations. The Bench observed that the issuance of such a direction to the respondent authorities was unwarranted, particularly when the applicants possessed an alternative course of pursuing their representations before the DoPT independently.
Explaining the rationale for declining the application, the Bench stated that the core submission of learned Senior Counsel was that unless the Court directed otherwise, there would not be proper application of mind by the respondents, a proposition which did not find favour with the Court.
Disposal as Withdrawn
Following the Court's reluctance to issue the prayed-for direction, Senior Advocate Bhushan sought permission to withdraw the application with liberty to pursue the representations before the DoPT. The Court recorded the application as dismissed as withdrawn.
When counsel further sought liberty for the applicants to avail appropriate remedies as admissible under law, the Bench clarified that no such liberty was required from the Court, effectively leaving the parties to their statutory remedies without judicial endorsement or reservation.
Directions in the Main PIL
In the same proceeding, the Bench directed that the PIL, along with connected petitions, be listed on December 23, 2026. The Deputy Solicitor General of India, Vishal Sharma, was directed to submit a comprehensive report on that date regarding compliance with the orders passed by the Court from time to time in the main matter.
Why Did the High Court Refuse to Direct the DoPT?
The High Court refused to direct the DoPT because the applicants' apprehension that the authority would not apply its mind without a court order did not find favour with the Bench. The Court held that such a direction was unwarranted given the applicants' alternative remedy of pursuing representations directly before the DoPT.