Srinagar: A court recently reprimanded a senior Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service (JKAS) officer for passing a “very arbitrary and illegal” order earlier this year, banning protests for free electricity in Kishtwar district.In an eight-page order, the principal session judge of Kishtwar, Sudhir K. Khajuria, without naming the officer, observed that he had gone “against the settled norms of law” and disregarded “the mandate of law” while passing the order on February 10 this year.The JKAS officer, Rajesh Kumar Shavan, who was then serving as the deputy commissioner of Kishtwar, had issued the order after a social media protest seeking free electricity threatened to take the shape of a mass movement in the power-surplus district of the Union territory which reels under outages throughout the year.In a letter on February 10, a sub-divisional magistrate (tehsildar) told then deputy commissioner of Kishtwar that “some miscreants” were trying to prevent the government officials from installing smart metres in the hilly district. On the same day, the deputy commissioner passed an order under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 which confers district magistrates with extraordinary powers to ban public gatherings among other events if they anticipate law and order problems.Waseem Akram Bhat, a local activist, who initiated the protest with a Facebook ‘live’ on January 19 this year, challenged the “mechanical and perfunctory” order in the court through a criminal revision petition, arguing that it “suppress(ed) … democratic rights” of people who were demanding free electricity from the government.On February 11, the court of principal sessions judge Manjeet Singh Manhas had set aside the order of the deputy commissioner, saying that peaceful protest was “integral part of healthy democracy”. However, the state had challenged the principal sessions judge’s order. The latest order was pronounced by the principal session judge Khajuria on August 28.After going through the court records, the judge observed that the deputy commissioner had acted illegally by creating “a vicious circle of receiving and getting the information” after giving “verbal directions” to a tehsildar who in turn prepared a report warning about the possibility of law and order breakdown.‘Not even a single word has been mentioned regarding the so-called inquiry…’The court noted that the deputy commissioner passed the ex-parte order under section 163 of BNSS without notifying it through a proclamation under section 153 of BNSS which lays down the rules for serving the order to the person or public against whom the order has been passed.“Even an ex-parte order has to be passed after framing an opinion…because an opinion regarding any fact cannot be framed without going through some inquiry…From the perusal of impugned order passed by the respondent, by no stretch of imagination, it can be gathered that it was passed after framing an opinion on the basis of any inquiry,” the court observed.The court observed that the state “tried to establish” that the order was passed after an official inquiry, “But in the order itself not even a single word has been mentioned regarding the so-called inquiry conducted by the Tehsildar Kishtwar, which Tehsildar Kishtwar has tried to convey it to the respondent through a letter bearing No. 75/JC/TK dated 10.02.2025”.‘Within a day’The court said that the proceedings in the case were initiated and concluded within a day, which violated the legal norms while refusing to buy the state’s argument that the order was issued after government officials faced “obstructions in discharge of their public duties” while installing meters in the district.The judge pointed out that the prosecution had not submitted any official documents or “complaint by some government officials regarding obstruction in discharge of their public duties”.“There is clear mention in the report regarding obstruction due to provocation, in the installation of smart meters in various places in Kishtwar, but not even a single person/individual was examined by the concerned revenue officials. If it happened in past there would definitely have been some official record pertaining to early occurrence,” the judge observed.“It appears that letter…as well as report (by the tehsildar) have been managed only to demonstrate that order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the respondent has been passed while complying the mandate of law but minute legal scrutiny of the record shows that while passing the order dated 10.02.2025 mandate of law has not been followed,” the court said.The court observed that an inquiry has “been shown to be” conducted by the magistrate…but actually there appears to be no inquiry conducted, “This type of inquiry was never conceived or imagined by the law makers while incorporating section 163 in Chapter XI of BNSS 2023…[and it goes against] the mandate of law”.‘Section 163’Citing the Supreme Court judgements in Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India and Others, and Ghulam Nabi Azad versus Union of India and Others, the court observed that section 163 (which corresponds to section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure) cannot be invoked unless “material facts” demonstrate the likelihood of threat to law and order.“The power (to issue order under section 163) should be exercised in a bona fide and reasonable manner, and the same should be passed by relying on the material facts, indicative of application of mind. This will enable judicial scrutiny of the order,” the court said.When contacted, Shavan, who is at present posted in J&K’s general administration department, told The Wire that he has been transferred out of the district and he was not aware of the order.