12-06-2023 : The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh division bench has expressed its dissatisfaction with the Union Territory (UT) government’s stance regarding the allowance of 49 politicians to occupy ministerial bungalows in Jammu and Kashmir. This issue was brought before the court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the eviction of former ministers and MLAs from these bungalows. The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice N. Kotishwar Singh and Justice Puneet Gupta, ordered the UT Administration to provide the court with information about the type of accommodation provided to ex-ministers, MLAs, and former bureaucrats, as well as the reasons behind this decision, at the next hearing.
The division bench expressed its disappointment with the report submitted by the UT Administration, which was initially presented in a sealed cover and then kept in another sealed cover. The court noted that the report failed to address the issue raised before the court, specifically whether a person entitled to security cover should also be entitled to government accommodation. The court emphasized that these are separate matters that should be considered independently.
Advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed, along with Advocates Supriya Chouhan and Mohd. Zulkarnain Choudhary, representing the petitioner, drew the attention of the division bench to a previous decision by the High Court. This decision, rendered by a division bench on December 26, 2022, in CM Nos. 7467/2022 & 7468/2022 in WP (C) PIL No. 17/2020, clearly stated that security assessment and entitlement to government accommodation are distinct issues that should not be mixed.
Advocate S. S. Ahmed strongly argued that according to the earlier decision of the division bench, it can be inferred that while security cover may be granted to a person due to threat perception, it is not necessary for the person to be provided with government accommodation. This was also the stand taken by the Administration in the aforementioned case. Advocate Ahmed further emphasized that there is no legal requirement for the government to provide accommodation to a person receiving security cover. Even if accommodation were to be provided in exceptional circumstances, it should not be the same as what the person occupied while in office, especially for former chief ministers/ministers or retired bureaucrats.
Advocate S. S. Ahmed referred to information obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) request from the Estates department. The information revealed that on December 21, 2018, the Deputy Director of Estates in Jammu issued eviction notices to former Deputy Chief Minister Kavinder Gupta, Bali Bhagat (former Health Minister), Sunil Kumar (former Minister), and others, directing them to surrender their ministerial bungalows by that date. The Estates Department would initiate eviction proceedings, including charging penal rent, for those who failed to comply with the notice. However, these unauthorized occupants have not vacated the ministerial bungalows to date, and the Estates Department has not taken action against them.
Advocate Ahmed further pointed out that the Estates Department has been selective in carrying out evictions, as 107 political individuals were evicted from government accommodations in Jammu. He argued that ex-ministers and ex-legislators belonging to a specific political party, who have access to power corridors, have not been targeted for eviction.
After considering Advocate S. S. Ahmed’s submissions, the division bench, led by Chief Justice N. Kotishwar Singh, expressed that the report submitted to the court did not provide any reason for granting official accommodation to these individuals, despite their potential security requirements. Therefore, the court requested the Administration to explain the nature of the accommodation provided and the reasons behind it at the next hearing. Recognizing the significance of the matter, the division bench instructed the court registry to re-notify the PIL for July 19, 2023.