Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (Revenue) vs. Abdul Majid Sofi

Held

The Court held that the explanation tendered by the review petitioner regarding the filing of the written statement during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic was plausible. The Court accepted that due to movement restrictions, verbal reports were obtained instead of written ones, and this was a common issue faced by offices nationwide during that period. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner being in her third trimester of pregnancy would have contributed to her inability to personally verify the facts. Consequently, the Court accepted the petitioner's explanation and recalled and expunged the adverse remarks made against her in para-16 of the judgment dated 21.02.2025, as well as direction No. (II) in para-19 of the said judgment. The review petition was disposed of accordingly.

Facts

The review petitioner, Ms. Kritika Jyotsna, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, filed a review petition seeking expunction of adverse remarks made against her in a previous judgment dated 21.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 2907/2022. The adverse remarks pertained to a written statement filed before the civil court at Ganderbal, which the High Court had found to be palpably false. The petitioner submitted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, she relied on verbal reports from staff due to prevailing restrictions and uncertainty, leading to the incorrect information. She also stated she was in her third trimester of pregnancy, affecting her ability to concentrate and verify facts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adverse remarks made against the review petitioner in the judgment dated 21.02.2025 in WP(C) No. 2907/2022, and the direction to initiate criminal proceedings, should be recalled and expunged, considering the circumstances presented by the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the incorrect information in the written statement was due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic conditions, which necessitated reliance on verbal reports from staff due to movement restrictions. Furthermore, she contended that her third trimester of pregnancy at the time impaired her ability to personally verify the facts. She sought expunction of the adverse remarks and the direction for criminal proceedings. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in response to the review petition. The court considered the submissions made by the review petitioner.