Confusion persists in J&K’s political corridors

Jammu, Dec 6: As the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir awaits the finalisation of business rules, pertaining to certain ‘grey areas’, confusion persists in political and official corridors and this finds its way into the minds of people as well.

The latest buzz dominating J&K is around presumed “strained ties between two august offices of the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister” due to the “dual power structure of UT.”

Though the issue has dominated political space since the democratically elected government has taken over the reins of J&K, the latest murmur has been revolving around two specific counts.

The issue on Friday received major traction after it was reported by one of the prominent national English dailies and a kind of counter reply (report) by a national news agency.

One - on the appointment of Advocate General of J&K and the second related to a few transfers in administration. With regard to the issue pertaining to Advocate General D C Raina, the national daily reported quoting anonymous “senior officials in the government”, that he was not able to “represent J&K in courts because of opposition from the Raj Bhawan.”

This needs to be mentioned here that Raina resigned on October 19, 2024, three days after the newly elected government took over. However, his resignation was reportedly rejected by the Chief Minister and Raina had confirmed it, too, to media persons, who were able to contact him.

Intriguingly, no official word is still there on this account, from any quarter (other than media reports).

As the grapevine was, Raina remained reluctant to be back in the saddle on verbal assurance (go-ahead to continue) and appear in courts to represent J&K till the issuance of a “formal order” regarding his continuance.

However, the national daily, in its report, mentioned the “poser of the Division Bench of the J&K High Court” during a hearing on a petition related to J&K reservation policy. Daily quoted the observation of HC stating that it was necessary to “hear Advocate General (A-G)” on this count yet “UT was without him (A-G).”

The second issue, the national daily focussed on bringing “dual power structure strain” to the fore was about transfers, carried out by “the LG office” when the CM was away in Saudi Arabia for performing ‘Umrah’. To be very specific, this transfer is related to a Jammu and Kashmir Administrative Service (JKAS) officer.

The national daily, again quoting its sources, stated that the Chief Minister, disapproving of this move while chairing a meeting of the General Administration Department a couple of days ago, ordered the attachment of the officer with the GAD. The national daily while mentioning these issues also referred to a lack of clarity vis-à-vis business rules.

The national daily report was followed by a report of a national news agency during the day, which seemed to be a kind of rejoinder.

The news agency, quoting its sources in the Union Home Ministry, said that there was “no confusion of overlapping powers as jurisdictions were very clear.”

With regard to the A-G appointment row, the news agency mentioned MHA sources quoting “J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 read with the J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Act, 2023.”

A verbatim quote of the agency referring to its sources, addressing A-G and transfer issues, read, “There is no way this should be interpreted as any point of friction between the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister, as long as he is the CM of J&K as a Union Territory, should have no confusion about his powers. The Chief Minister has all the powers except that the prerogative to transfer IAS and IPS officers lies entirely with the Lieutenant Governor as does his power over the UT police department. If the Lt Governor ordered the transfer of some IAS officer in the interest of administration, why should anybody try to interpret it as overlapping or overstepping of jurisdiction?”

“Anybody trying to create a wedge between the offices of the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Minister is neither a well-wisher of the people nor of the two august offices he/she wants to bring into confrontation,” read another important quote of the agency report, attributing to MHA sources.

With regard to Rules of Business, the national daily stated that the J&K Government had “sent them (rules) for vetting to constitutional experts and would be forwarded to the Union government for concurrence.”

The agency report, referring to the same sources (in MHA), mentioned that they (Business Rules) were being vetted by the MHA and “would soon be made public to put at rest all speculations of overlapping of jurisdiction in J&K.”

Notably, as per amended rules vide MHA notification of July 2024, no proposal, which requires the previous concurrence of the Finance Department with regard to ‘Police’, ‘Public Order’, ‘All India Service’ and ‘Anti-Corruption Bureau’ to exercise the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor under the Act, will be concurred or rejected unless it has been placed before the Lieutenant Governor through the Chief Secretary.

It simply means that the Lieutenant Governor will have the power to transfer IAS and IPS officers and will have direct control over the Police, 'Public Order’ and ‘Anti-Corruption Bureau.’

Besides, the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs will submit the proposal for the appointment of the Advocate General and other Law Officers to assist the Advocate-General in the court proceedings, for approval of the Lieutenant Governor through the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister.

While existing Transaction of Business of the Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Rules, 2019 in place from 2020, and the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 to be read with ‘J&K Reorganisation (Amendment) Act, 2023’ clarify the mandate of LG, CM and others in majority of areas yet still certain “grey areas” continue to act as irritant, hence necessitating “review by new government” and “vetting by MHA.”