Skip to main content

Bar Associations in J&K Call for Judicial Work Boycott on April 23 to Protest Pahalgam Terror Attack


Srinagar/Jammu, April 23 – Legal associations across Jammu and Kashmir have strongly condemned the deadly terrorist attack that struck the Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam on April 22, claiming the lives of 28 civilians and injuring several others. In response, multiple bar associations have announced a collective boycott of judicial work today (April 23), in both mourning and protest.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association (Jammu), led by President Advocate K. Nirmal Kotwal, described the attack as a “cowardly and inhumane act of violence” that deliberately targeted innocent people. The association has declared a complete Jammu Bandh and urged all lawyers in the region to suspend court proceedings for the day. It also appealed to civil society organizations to stand in solidarity and demand justice for the victims.

In a similar stance, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association (Srinagar), under President Advocate Waseem Gul, called the incident a “barbaric assault with no place in a civilized society.” Lawyers practicing in the Srinagar High Court as well as subordinate courts across the Kashmir Valley have been directed to refrain from judicial duties as a tribute to those who lost their lives.

The Kashmir Jurists Bar Association also issued a strong condemnation, referring to the attack as an “inhuman act by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists.” The association called for a peaceful Kashmir Bandh, urging all citizens to come together in unity against the growing threat of terrorism in the region.

In a unified voice, all three bar associations labeled the attack a grave threat to peace and humanity. They called upon the government to swiftly identify and punish the perpetrators while also demanding enhanced security arrangements to protect civilians from future attacks.

The coordinated protest by the legal fraternity highlights the widespread outrage and sorrow caused by the Pahalgam tragedy. It reflects a growing call for justice, accountability, and renewed efforts to safeguard lives in one of India’s most vulnerable regions.

As the boycott unfolds, pressing questions remain: Will the government expedite its investigation? And will tangible security reforms follow to prevent further such atrocities? The coming days may determine the answers.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more