New Delhi: Legal luminaries have expressed their angst at the manner in which directions were allegedly issued to a principal sessions judge in Srinagar by the secretary of a Jammu and Kashmir high court judge to not grant bail to an applicant.They said that such a call should never have been made as it amounted to “interference in the course of justice” and have lauded the sessions judge’s decision to bring the matter to the notice of the chief justice of the high court.Sessions judge was told to ‘make sure no bail is granted’The issue came to light after the principal sessions judge in Srinagar, Abdul Rashid Malik, on December 7 referred the bail application of one Sheikh Salman to Chief Justice Gita Mittal, who was retiring the same day, in an order that read: “This application has come up today for hearing. At 9.51 AM, the under-signed received a call from Mr Tariq Ahmad Mota, Secretary to Hon’ble Mr Justice Javid Iqbal Wani.”In his order, Malik further wrote that the “the following were the contents of his mobile call: ‘I have been directed by Hon’ble Mr Justice Javid Iqbal Wani to convey you to make sure that no bail is granted to Sheikh Salman. If there is any anticipatory bail pending, the direction is the same’.”Salman is accused of attempt to murder. According to the Indian Express, Salman had assaulted a youngster and then posted a ‘detailed account’ on social media about how he had “taught him a lesson”Malik expressed his “inability to hear the matter” in view of these directions. He, therefore, urged the registrar (judicial) of the high court to place the matter before the chief justice as it involved the “liberty of the person”.“The learned counsel for the petitioner shall appear before the learned Registrar Judicial, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar today [on December 7],” he added.Thereafter, it has been reported that the then chief justice referred the case back to the district court, which subsequently granted bail to the applicant.However, the issue is larger as it involves directing a judicial officer to act in a certain way.Jammu and Kashmir high court. Photo: PTI‘Interference with the course of justice’Talking to The Wire, senior advocate and Justice (Retired) Anjana Prakash expressed her anger with the manner in which such directions were issued to a subordinate judge. “The high court judge, under no circumstances should have made the call through his secretary. It amounts to interference with the course of justice,” she said.The senior jurist noted that this was not the first time that such an incident has occurred. “I am sorry to say this is certainly not the first instance when such a thing has been done; it is always kept under wraps.”She lauded the sessions judge for acting in the manner he did. “It is rare, only in the sense, that the sessions judge called out the high court judge and that too in a judicial order, putting his career at stake. I salute him and commend the chief justice of the J&K high court for having taken prompt action upon it.”Justice Prakash also urged that what happens to this district judge in future should be tracked. “However, I would advise you to keep a track of the sessions judge a few years hence to see what effect this act has had upon him or his career,” she said.‘No place in law for such instructions’Sharing the view that a senior judge should never issue directions in this manner, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, said: “There is no place in law for such instructions. No judge can be told how to perform his judicial function by even another judge who sits in an appellate court. So, if this is true, then obviously this needs to be viewed seriously.”Hegde demanded an investigation into the matte. However, he pointed out that “a high court judge cannot be punished except through impeachment” and that “a transfer is not a punishment.” As for the secretary who issued the direction, he said, there can be an administrative inquiry.On whether any judge who is directed in this manner can approach the chief justice, Hegde said: “A junior judge can set in motion the process of lodging a complaint. It would depend on the chief justice of the HC to sort things out – through an inquiry, which may be a discreet in-house inquiry or by setting up a full-fledged enquiry committee.”‘More to the case than meets the eye’A senior lawyer pointed out that Justice Wani is the son-in-law of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association president Mian Abdul Qayoom. As a senior additional advocate general of the state, he had opposed the release of his father-in-law who was detained under the Public Safety Act in 2019, when the Centre downgraded Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status. He became a HC judge in June this year.“The father-in-law of Justice Wani was president of the Kashmir Bar and was detained in August 2019 and this judge himself prosecuted his father-in-law as a lawyer. He is apparently an ‘independent spirit’ who is not liked by the local Bar and nor by the administration. So there may be more than what meets the eye,” the lawyer insinuated.