Expressing concern over the prolonged pendency of a public interest litigation (PIL) related to the infamous Arms Licences Scam, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to file a fresh affidavit detailing the progress made in deciding on the Central Bureau of Investigation’s proposal seeking sanction to prosecute eight IAS officers.
The matter, pending since 2012, pertains to allegations of large-scale corruption and irregularities in the issuance of arms licences in Jammu & Kashmir between 2012 and 2016.
Court Voices Concern Over Delay
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that despite the public interest nature of the petition, the case has seen little substantive progress over the years.
“.. We are constrained to observe that the petition at hands is being tried in public interest and is pending since 2012. But, the matter has not made much progress. Therefore, for the present, as prayed by learned counsel for the respondents, we defer the proceedings by four weeks. Respondents shall furnish a fresh affidavit on or before the adjourned date, indicating the progress in the matter,” the Bench recorded.
The case has now been adjourned to April 9, 2026.
Read also: Jammu Hosts National Governance Conference 2026 to Showcase Award-Winning District Initiatives
Background of the Arms Licences Scam
The PIL was instituted alleging large-scale corruption in Jammu & Kashmir, particularly irregularities in the issuance of arms licences during 2012–2016. Following reference by the then Government of Jammu & Kashmir, the case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
While sanction for prosecution was reportedly granted against certain JKAS officers and charge sheets have been filed, the proposal seeking sanction to prosecute eight IAS officers remains under consideration with the MHA.
Proceedings in February 2026
On February 12, 2026, the Division Bench was informed that the matter was under active consideration and that a formal decision was likely in the immediate future. Based on this assurance, the Court had deferred proceedings.
However, when the case was taken up again on February 26, 2026, the Bench was told that the issue of sanction was still under consideration.
Upon being asked about a timeline for a final decision, senior counsel for the respondents sought short accommodation to obtain instructions and file a specific affidavit clarifying the position.
MHA Status Report and Request for Time
A status report dated February 24, 2026, along with an affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, was placed on record.
The report revealed that a meeting had been convened on August 27, 2025, by the MHA, chaired by the Additional Secretary of the Union Territory, and attended by officials of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir and the CBI.
During the meeting, the CBI’s proposal seeking sanction for prosecution against the IAS officers named in the FIRs was deliberated upon. The MHA stated that certain clarifications were sought from the J&K Administration and the CBI to enable an informed decision. Those clarifications have since been submitted.
However, the Ministry informed the Court that the proposal requires “comprehensive and detailed analysis” of records and evidence collected during investigation to determine the specific role of each officer. It accordingly sought four months’ additional time to complete the process and arrive at a final decision.
Submissions by Counsel
Appearing for the Union of India, Deputy Solicitor General Vishal Sharma along with Central Government Standing Counsel Anishwar Chatterji Koul submitted that the Ministry requires further time to ensure a legally sustainable decision.
On behalf of the petitioners, Advocate S.S. Ahmed, assisted by Advocate Supriya Chouhan, pressed for expeditious consideration. They emphasised that the matter has remained pending for over a decade and involves issues of significant public importance.
Court Expresses Dissatisfaction
After perusing the status report and hearing submissions, the Division Bench expressed dissatisfaction with the pace of progress.
The Court noted that despite earlier assurances that a decision would be taken in the immediate future, the sanction issue continued to remain unresolved. While taking note of the respondents’ request for more time, the Bench granted four weeks and directed that a fresh affidavit be filed before the next hearing, specifically indicating the progress made.
The development underscores judicial concern over delays in corruption-related cases, particularly those involving senior civil servants, and reflects the Court’s insistence on accountability in matters of public interest.
