Contempt of Court! SAM Faces Heat for Misquoting J&K High Court Judgement

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has initiated contempt of court proceedings against leading law firm Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM) for allegedly misrepresenting its 2010 judgement in a legal notice. The Srinagar Bench, led by Justice Rahul Bharti, passed the order on January 2, 2025, citing the matter as a potential case of criminal contempt.

Case Background

The legal notice, dated April 18, 2022, was issued by SAM through its partner, Ritu Bhalla, in connection with the Sawalkote Prosjektutvikling AS (SPAS) v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir case. The notice allegedly misquoted the High Court’s February 1, 2010, judgement, presenting it as validating a contract between the Sawalkote Consortium and the Jammu & Kashmir State Power Development Corporation (JKSPDC).

Justice Bharti noted in his order:

“The said misquoting of the judgement of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by none else than a law firm is a serious matter to be taken with due seriousness as prima-facie amounting to a criminal contempt undermining the administration of justice and the authority of this Court and its judgement.”

The Court directed SAM Delhi to appear in person and clarify its position.

The Dispute

The dispute revolves around the Sawalkote Hydroelectric Project (1856 MW), which was originally part of an agreement between SPAS and JKSPDC. In 2006, a government order mandated the project’s execution through competitive bidding, effectively superseding earlier agreements. This decision was challenged in a writ petition by SPAS, Hindustan Construction Company, and Ozaltin Construction, collectively forming the Sawalkote Consortium.

The High Court’s 2010 judgement quashed the government order, deeming it arbitrary and violative of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the judgement did not address the contractual status of the Sawalkote Consortium, focusing instead on government action and judicial review.

Allegations of Misrepresentation

The Court took suo motu cognizance of SAM’s legal notice, which it claimed misrepresented the 2010 judgement to imply that the Consortium’s contractual standing had been upheld as “alive, thriving, and binding.” Justice Bharti’s order criticised the notice for attributing a self-serving interpretation to the judgement, stating:

“At no point…did the writ court examine or intend to examine the nature of the relationship between the petitioners under the cloak of Sawalkote Consortium and the respondents from the lens of contractual relationship.”

Court’s Directions

The Court issued a notice to SAM, calling for an explanation, and directed the Registrar Judicial in Jammu to facilitate the process.