HC 'rings a bell' on Darbar move in JK; asks Centre to look into its necessity

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court on Tuesday asked decision makers, including the Centre, to look into the necessity of the 148-year-old biannual Darbar move, keeping in mind the financial implication of more than Rs 200 crore incurred by the "hopelessly fiscally deprived Union Territory".

In its 93-page judgement, a division bench of the court headed by Chief Justice Geeta Mittal also listed the suggestion made by senior advocate Monika Kohli, who had highlighted the digitisation of officials records.

Hearing a self-adopted public interest litigation, the division bench gave the historical perspective of biannual darbar move whereby the capital of Jammu and Kashmir is shifted every six months from Jammu (winter capital) to Srinagar (summer capital).

The court said that from the facts placed regarding the Darbar move, the disregard of public interest in its origins and implementation, its adverse effects, the huge fiscal, social and economic costs, amply manifest that its propriety, feasibility and efficacy of the arrangement is one such matter "overlooked and forgotten".

"The material placed before us manifests that there has been no application of mind to the changed circumstances because of technological and scientific advances. Our judicial conscience compels us to ring the bell else we would fail in discharging our judicial duty or to perform our constitutional function as demanded in the interest of the Nation and the people of Jammu and Kashmir, especially its common woman and man, the poor and the weak.

"We hasten to add that conscious of the limitations of our jurisdiction, we shall confine ourselves to 'ringing the bell' without anything more."
Deferring this task to the "best wisdom of those on whom the Constitution of India bestows this solemn duty", the division bench asked that the judgement be served on Union home secretary and chief secretary of the UT "with the direction to place the same before competent authorities for examining the issues raised and taking a considered decision thereon."
The judgement began with a question raised by the division bench asking "whether any government can afford the annual expenditure of at least Rs 200 crores (as disclosed and many more hundreds of crores of rupees of undisclosed costs) for shifting of its capital two times a year, a practice which started in 1872 from the discomfort of the then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir with the harshness of the winter in Kashmir?"
She argued before the court that both the cities were well connected by air and road and said, "It is clearly logical that the consideration of extreme weather in support of the Darbar move does not hold weight today."