SRINAGAR: In a stern order underscoring the supremacy of the rule of law, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, on Tuesday issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against the Vice Chancellor of the Islamic University of Science and Technology (IUST), Prof. Shakil Ahmad Romshoo, and the university’s Registrar, Shamim Ahmad Shah, after holding that they had repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions in a contempt case despite being granted several opportunities.
The Tribunal directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Police District Awantipora, to execute the warrants and produce both officials before the court on August 6 at 11:30 am. It also directed its Registry to constitute a Division Bench for the next hearing.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Member (Judicial) M. S. Latif and Member (Administrative) Prasant Kumar while hearing Contempt Petition No. 152/2026 arising out of Original Application No. 552/2026 filed by Dr Sheikh Mohd Imran. The contempt proceedings relate to the alleged non-compliance of the Tribunal’s earlier directions, which have also been the subject of proceedings before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
The Tribunal recalled that on August 3 it had directed the respondents to appear in person before the court on August 4 to facilitate compliance with its orders and those passed by the High Court. The hearing was deliberately scheduled during the pre-lunch session to enable the officers to return to their official duties after the proceedings.
When the case was taken up at 11 am on Tuesday, Deputy Advocate General Syed Musaib sought time to obtain instructions on whether the respondents were willing to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. The matter was taken up again at 12:10 pm, when the government counsel informed the Bench that separate applications had been filed on behalf of Prof. Romshoo and Registrar Shah seeking exemption from personal appearance.
The Tribunal, however, observed that the respondents had already been granted the option of appearing through virtual mode in earlier proceedings, but failed to avail themselves of that opportunity. Their continued non-compliance had earlier compelled the Tribunal to issue bailable warrants. Even after the High Court deferred their personal appearance, the respondents, the Bench said, did not comply with the court’s directions.
The Bench noted that it had repeatedly advised the respondents, through their counsel, to comply with the court’s orders and had even expressed its willingness to hear the matter at a time convenient to them. “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 Tribunal observed.
After hearing the matter again at 1:35 pm, the Tribunal noted that detailed orders had already been passed on July 20, July 21, July 23 and August 3. It held that the exemption applications were not prima facie bona fide as they cited only “administrative constraints” without disclosing any sufficient reason for avoiding personal appearance before the court.
The Bench observed that the contempt petition had remained pending since June 16 and that the respondents had approached the High Court through two separate writ petitions challenging the Tribunal’s orders. Despite this, the Tribunal said it had consistently taken into account the High Court’s directions and granted repeated opportunities to the respondents to comply.
It further recorded that the statement of facts earlier filed by the respondents failed to satisfy the court, describing it as vague, non-specific and apparently intended to prolong compliance. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Delhi Development Authority versus Skipper Construction Company Pvt Ltd, the Tribunal observed that a contemnor cannot be permitted to enjoy the benefits of delayed compliance or indefinitely stall enforcement of judicial orders.
The Tribunal held that the respondents had adopted a policy of deliberate “foot-dragging” and were only seeking to delay compliance. It observed that contempt jurisdiction is integral to preserving the sanctity of judicial proceedings and warned that such conduct, if unchecked, would diminish public confidence in the justice delivery system.
While noting that courts generally adopt a lenient approach where there is some delay in implementing orders, the Bench said the conduct of the respondents in the present case struck “at the very heart of judicial authority” and could not be tolerated. It concluded that their conduct amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience of court orders.
The Tribunal also referred to Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 9 of the Contempt of Courts (CAT) Rules, 1992, observing that it exercises the same contempt powers as a High Court, including the authority to issue bailable or non-bailable warrants against persons who evade appearance before the court.
Emphasising the seriousness of contempt proceedings, the Bench said the respondents had ignored the option of virtual appearance, failed to respond to bailable warrants and continued to avoid compliance despite repeated indulgence by the court. “The supremacy of law has to be preserved and upheld at any cost, as the rule of law is the bedrock of our Constitution,” it observed.
The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Sitaram Enterprises versus Prithviraj Vardichand Jain, observing that although contempt jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, courts should not hesitate to adopt a strict approach where necessary to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and ensure compliance with lawful orders.
During the proceedings, the respondents’ counsel was once again asked whether the officers were prepared to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. Instead, he pressed for disposal of the exemption applications. After hearing both sides, the Bench dismissed the applications, holding that they disclosed no compelling circumstances that could outweigh the earlier directions of the court.
Consequently, the Tribunal ordered issuance of non-bailable warrants against Prof. Romshoo and Registrar Shah, directing the SSP, Awantipora, to execute the warrants without fail and produce both officials before the court on August 6.
Clarifying the scope of its order, the Tribunal said that the observations made during the contempt proceedings would not influence the final adjudication of the main Original Application. Before parting with the case, the Bench remarked, “Disregarding a court’s order may seem bold, but the shadows of its consequences are long and cold.”
