Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Initiates Contempt Proceedings Against Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas
On January 2, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh initiated contempt of court proceedings against the prominent law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) for allegedly misrepresenting its 2010 judgment in a legal notice issued in SPAS v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Court’s Findings
The order, passed by Justice Rahul Bharti, highlighted that paragraphs 18, 20, 23, 27, 28, and 32 of a legal notice dated April 18, 2022, issued by SAM through its partner, Ritu Bhalla, contained a “misconceived and perverted reference” to the 2010 judgment. The Court deemed this misquotation a matter of “criminal contempt,” stating that it undermined the administration of justice and the judiciary’s authority.
The legal notice suggested that the 2010 judgment upheld a contract between the Sawalkote Consortium and JKSPDC, portraying the contract as “alive, thriving, and binding.” However, the Court clarified that the judgment did not address the Consortium’s Consortium’s contractual status but instead focused on the legality of government actions and judicial review.
Background of the Case
The contempt proceedings arose from a petition filed by Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (SPAS), challenging a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Corporation (JKPDC) and the National Hydro Electric Project (NHPC). SPAS contended that it had an existing agreement with JKPDC for the Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project (1856 MW).
The Court had dismissed SPAS’s writ petition, holding that it lacked the locus to challenge the MoU. Despite this, SAM’s legal notice allegedly misrepresented the 2010 judgment to support SPAS’s claims.
Context of the 2010 Judgment
The 2010 judgment, referenced in the notice, resulted from a challenge to a 2006 Government Order (GO) mandating competitive bidding for the Sawalkote project. The High Court had quashed the GO, finding it arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.
However, the judgment did not address or validate the contractual relationship between the Consortium (comprising SPAS, Hindustan Construction Company, and Ozaltin Construction) and JKSPDC. The Court explicitly noted that SAM’s interpretation of the judgment was baseless and self-serving.
Suo Motu Notice and Appearance Order
The Court took suo motu cognizance of the alleged misquotation and directed the Registrar Judicial, Jammu, to issue a notice to SAM. The firm was instructed to appear in person to explain its actions.
Legal Representation
- For Petitioners: Senior Advocate CM Koul, Advocates Arshad Hussain, and AR Bhat.
- For Union Territory of J&K: Advocate General DC Raina and Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta.
- For JKSPDC and NHPC: Senior Advocate PN Raina, Advocates JA Hamal, and AP Singh.
The case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding its authority and ensuring accurate representation of its judgments.
