In a significant move, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, led by Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Chowdhary, has instructed the J&K government to provide an updated status report concerning the occupation of government accommodations by former Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad and former BJP state chief Ravinder Raina. The directive was issued during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) advocating for the eviction of overstaying politicians from government properties.
The PIL highlights a broader issue of former ministers, legislators, and politicians occupying government bungalows beyond their entitled period. Addressing the court, Senior Additional Advocate General SS Nanda, representing the J&K Estates Department, noted that only three politicians currently remain in such accommodations. He revealed that one of these, Ravinder Sharma, an ex-member of the Legislative Council and chief spokesperson for the J&K Congress, has already secured a stay against eviction through a separate writ petition.
In light of these developments, the designated government committee is expected to reassess the allotment of accommodations, with Nanda requesting an additional three weeks to compile the necessary details on Azad and Raina.
Advocate SS Ahmed, representing the petitioner, argued against the inconsistency in applying the law across the Union Territory. He referenced a prior ruling by the same court which differentiated between security needs and housing entitlements, further supported by a related Delhi High Court decision in Subramanyam Swami’s case. Ahmed emphasized that prior recommendations by the designated committee should not contradict established legal precedents, noting that similar principles led to the eviction of two former chief ministers and over 180 other politicians.
The Division Bench has set a deadline of April 23 for the J&K government to submit the requested status report, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to equal application of the law and proper use of government resources. This case underscores ongoing efforts to ensure that government accommodations are fairly managed and that former officeholders do not unduly benefit from public assets beyond their service terms.
