J&K High Court Stays CAT's Non-Bailable Warrants Against IUST VC, Registrar; Asks Tribunal to Decide Main Case
Tribunal says repeated non-compliance with its directions and deliberate disobedience left it with no option but initiate contempt proceedings.
Published : August 5, 2026 at 9:07 PM IST
|Updated : August 5, 2026 at 11:02 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Wednesday stayed further contempt proceedings initiated by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, against Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST) Vice Chancellor Prof. Shakil Ahmad Romshoo and Registrar Shamim Ahmad Shah, including the non-bailable warrants issued against them a day earlier.
In a one-page interim order passed by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, the High Court issued notice on the petition filed by the university authorities, called for the records from the tribunal and fixed the matter for hearing on September 7, 2026.
"In the meantime, further proceedings in the contempt shall stay. However, the Tribunal shall do well to consider the main OA and dispose of the same finally," the court directed. The order came after counsel for the respondent, Dr Imran, accepted notice before the court, eliminating the need for formal service. The High Court also directed that the records be requisitioned from the tribunal before the next hearing.
The High Court's intervention came a day after the CAT's Srinagar Bench issued non-bailable warrants against the IUST vice chancellor and registrar in a contempt petition, holding that they had repeatedly failed to comply with its directions in a service matter filed by Dr Imran.
In its six-page order, the tribunal directed the senior superintendent of police, Police District Awantipora, to execute the warrants and produce both officers before it on August 6, 2026.
The tribunal had observed that despite repeated opportunities, including permission to appear virtually, issuance of bailable warrants and directions for personal appearance, the university officials failed to comply with its orders.
Rejecting their applications seeking exemption from personal appearance on the ground of administrative constraints, the tribunal said, "Perusal of the contents of the aforesaid applications, whereby exemptions are sought, prima facie, does not appear to be bona fide, as no sufficient reason has been shown other than the administrative constraints for compliance of the Court Orders."
The bench further observed: "What appears from the continuous conduct of the respondents/contemnors is that they only want to delay compliance of the orders of the Court... they have adopted a policy of deliberate foot-dragging."
Holding that the conduct amounted to intentional defiance, it said: "Such conduct is deliberate and wilful in disobeying the orders of the court."
The tribunal warned that the authority of the judiciary could not be undermined, observing: "The Court has been held to ransom only to delay compliance of its orders. We regretfully note that the situation in the present case is a converse of compliance. Needless to say that supremacy of law has to be preserved and upheld at any cost, as the rule of law is the bedrock of our Constitution."
While explaining why coercive action had become necessary, the tribunal said contempt powers are exercised sparingly but "at times, circumstances call for extreme steps to be taken" to ensure compliance with judicial orders.
Earlier during the proceedings, while granting additional time, the bench had remarked: "We have to uphold the rule of law and preserve and safeguard the trust and faith that people have in Courts, as otherwise the Court orders would become a subject of mockery."
The contempt proceedings stem from Original Application No. 552/2026 filed by Dr Imran. Dr Imran, who holds a PhD in Library and Information Science and previously served as a permanent Assistant Librarian at the University of Kashmir, had applied for the post of Librarian at IUST under a 2024 recruitment advertisement.
Although he was selected by the university's selection committee and appointed in January 2025, he alleged that his appointment order wrongly treated the post as tenure-based instead of regular, while other candidates selected through the same recruitment process were appointed regularly.
Approaching the tribunal on May 30, Dr Imran argued that the university could not alter the nature of the advertised post after the recruitment process had concluded. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, he contended that recruitment conditions cannot be changed to the disadvantage of a selected candidate.
Finding a prima facie case, the CAT had on June 2 directed the university to maintain Dr Imran's existing position and status as Librarian until further orders and sought a response from the authorities. According to the tribunal, its directions remained unimplemented, leading to contempt proceedings and a series of subsequent orders before it finally issued non-bailable warrants.
Also read
