The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu recently expunged adverse remarks it had made against a young lawyer in a 2021 judgment, after accepting his unconditional apology and taking a sympathetic view as requested by the Supreme Court of India [Nikhil Padha v. Chairman National Human Rights Commission].
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that the lawyer's apology was genuine and bona fide.
It, therefore, ordered that the scathing observations earlier recorded in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 10 of the High Court's September 8, 2021, judgment be deleted and not be read adversely against the lawyer.
In 2021, advocate Nikhil Padha, then a fresh law graduate from Dogra Law College, University of Jammu, had filed a public interest litigation seeking the revival of the defunct Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission, Women’s Commission, Accountability Commission, and Information Commission.
He had called for the continuation of pending cases before these fora and the establishment of independent human rights bodies across Jammu and Kashmir.
However, a Division Bench of the Court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹10,000. It also questioned the petitioner’s bona fides and recorded remarks suggesting that the petition appeared politically motivated.
These comments, Padha later contended, were detrimental to his budding legal career.
Aggrieved, Padha approached the Supreme Court for relief, confining his grievance to the adverse remarks made against him by the High Court.
The apex court, on September 19, 2022, permitted him to tender an unqualified apology before the High Court. The top court also requested the Chief Justice to take a sympathetic view of the matter so that the adverse remarks made by the High Court earlier do not affect the lawyer's professional prospects.
Acting on that liberty, Padha, now enrolled as an advocate, filed an affidavit before the High Court expressing deep regret. He explained that the earlier petition was his first-ever legal drafting attempt and that certain statements were drawn from newspaper reports and research papers without legal precision. He maintained that his intention was not to scandalize the court but to highlight human rights concerns in good faith.
The Bench observed that Padha’s earlier conduct reflected over-enthusiasm and inexperience rather than any deliberate intent to misuse the judicial process. It proceeded to accept his apology and delete the earlier adverse remarks made against him.
“We are persuaded to take a sympathetic view, particularly for we find that the unqualified apology tendered by the applicant to be genuine and bona fide,” the October 8 order stated.
[Read Order]