“Ruthless Suspensions” Versus “Legal Oversight”: The Gap Between Shah’s claims and Civil Service Purges in J&K

SRINAGAR: As opposed to the Union Home Minister Amit Shah boast about “ruthlessly suspending relatives and sympathisers of terrorism from government service” in Jammu and Kashmir as a concrete measure to combat terrorism, the dismissal of 79 employees in the last four years suggests systematic circumvention of legal processes rather than exceptional use of what was intended as a measure of last resort.

Speaking in the parliament on March 21, Shah said that the government has “ruthlessly” suspended relatives and sympathisers of terrorists from government service to send across a message. He added that the government has also banned supporters of terrorism from getting passports, government jobs and government contracts.

Legal experts, however, are aghast at the arbitrary nature of these measures which they argue amounts to “eroding fundamental rights”.

An investigation by the Kashmir Times revealed that as of March 2025, the Jammu and Kashmir administration has dismissed a total of 79 government employees under Article 311(2)(c) of the Indian Constitution, which permits termination without an inquiry if the President or the governor considers it necessary for the security of the state.

This figure includes five dismissals that have occurred since October 16, 2024, following the inauguration of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s second term.

On November 28, 2024 two government employees in Jammu and Kashmir—Abdul Rehman Naika and Zahir Abbas were similarly sacked.

In a more recent development in February 2025, the government of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed three government employees — police constable Firdous Ahmad Bhat, teacher Mohammad Ashraf Bhat and forest department orderly Nisar Ahmad Khan — for alleged links to militancy. The three were dismissed under Article 311(2)(c) of the Indian Constitution.

Legal Concerns

Article 311(2)(c) is a constitutional provision that was designed as an extraordinary measure for “rarest of rare cases.” However, its application in Jammu and Kashmir represents a significant deviation from this principle, noted legal scholar Gautam Bhatia pointed out.

Many legal experts argue the flawed application of this pattern on three broad principles – the frequency with which it is used, the arbitrariness and lack of transparency and the vagueness of the words and phrases used in the termination orders.

Other than this, lawyers point out that the most concerning aspect of these summary dismissals is the explicit targeting of family members based solely on their relationship with alleged terrorists or terrorist ‘sympathisers’.

“The constitution does not sanction guilt by association. The fundamental legal principle is that guilt is personal rather than inherited or transmitted through family ties,” a legal expert said. Gautam Bhatia endorses this view by averring that such actions erode fundamental rights and contravene the legal principle that guilt is personal, not inherited or transmitted through family ties.

Sagar Sajad, a lawyer in the J&K High Court elaborates on why the principle of guilt by association is concerning. The Indian courts have repeatedly ruled against it in cases like Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) and Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011), he points out.

Sajad also reminds that the Supreme Court has held that mere association with a group or ideology does not justify punitive action unless there is clear proof of active involvement in illegal activities. “In the context of government dismissals, this principle is often overlooked, with employees being terminated based on allegations rather than direct evidence,” he adds.

Frequency & Ambiguity

Article 311 was intended to ensure that no civil servant can be dismissed without inquiry, but clause 2(c) provides for an exception in cases where an inquiry would be prejudicial to state security. Legal experts say the provision is being increasingly used to circumvent due process, especially after the abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019, which revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

The use of Article 311(2)(c) in Jammu and Kashmir has been particularly pronounced since 2021, when the administration established a Special Task Force to scrutinize and recommend action against employees suspected of activities prejudicial to state security.

While these dismissals are concentrated in Jammu and Kashmir, there is limited publicly available data on the application of Article 311(2)(c) across other regions of India.

Shafqat Nazir, a senior lawyer, questions the exceptionality of Jammu and Kashmir. “Is the situation in Kashmir so bad that they cannot conduct an inquiry? As far as we know, there is no declared emergency,” Nazir said, according to a report.

Another Srinagar-based lawyer who has handled several such cases said it was “a disturbing trend which erodes fundamental rights.” He spoke on condition of anonymity.

“This loophole allows the government to sack employees without giving them a chance to defend themselves. In many cases, no direct evidence is given to the accused. So, they have no legal option but to reconcile. This is a travesty of justice.”

The Lieutenant Governor who invokes this constitutional provision to dismiss employees has often justified these actions and alluded to “investigations” by law enforcement and intelligence agencies forming the basis of such decisions. None of these claimed probes are in the public domain.

The opaqueness of the procedure which not only denies the employees a hearing but also denies them first-hand information of the termination raises questions about propriety, transparency, and accountability with chilling impact on employees who now live in perpetual fear of the axe falling on their feet by weaponizing an old statement they made or wrote, some past actions or actions of family members.

The frequent application of Article 311(2)(c) erodes constitutional safeguards, as it circumvents the usual requirement of a formal inquiry before dismissal, say legal experts.

Another lawyer, pleading anonymity, points out that terms like “sympathizers” and “supporters” used in the termination orders and the argument of “in the interest of the security of the state” lack clear legal definitions, creating scope for subjective interpretation by authorities.

Without transparent and objective criteria guiding these determinations, decisions may be influenced by political considerations rather than genuine security threats, critics point out.

Gautam Bhatia describes the procedures as “constitutionally suspect”. In an interview he says that while Article 311(2)(c) itself says the main provision, to protect employees from arbitrary dismissal, will not apply when it is invoked, other constitutional guarantees including the right against arbitrary state action and the right to equal protection of law continue to apply.

Limited Judicial Review

The limited judicial review available under Article 311(2)(c) compounds these concerns, as employees dismissed under this provision have restricted avenues for appeal, and the lack of mandatory disclosure of specific allegations makes it difficult to challenge dismissals effectively.

While they can approach the courts, the lack of transparency and the broad use of ‘national security’ as justification make legal challenges difficult. “They are not even provided with charges or evidence,” a lawyer pleading one such case pointed out.

The Supreme Court ruling in C. N. Malla vs State of J&K clearly laid down that dismissal of a government employee should be subject to due process. The court held that dismissal without holding a proper inquiry is against constitutional provisions. But the courts in the current environment are ill-placed to intervene.

Lawyers said that though the terminations under Article 311(2)(c) can be challenged in court, several factors make these legal challenges particularly cumbersome.

Firstly, dismissed employees often do not receive specific details or evidence supporting their termination, as such information is withheld on grounds of national security. This lack of transparency severely hampers their ability to mount an effective legal defense.

Secondly, the courts tend to exercise caution in matters where the government cites national security, often deferring to the administration’s judgment. This deference can limit the judiciary’s willingness to overturn such dismissals.

Thirdly, the legal process in these cases can be protracted, with hearings and appeals extending over several years. This duration can be financially and emotionally taxing for the dismissed employees.

Sagar Sajad says that the scope of juridical remedies is limited due to the national security clause under Article 311(2)(c). “Courts may intervene if a dismissal is found to be arbitrary, disproportionate, or politically motivated, but they rarely challenge national security decisions outright,” he says.

What further compounds the problem, he avers, is “the secrecy surrounding intelligence reports, the use of the sealed cover doctrine, and the presumption of good faith in government actions make it difficult for dismissed employees to effectively contest their termination.”

The lawyer also mentions the problems that occur due to procedural irregularities.

He quotes the case of Dr. Muheet, a professor at Kashmir University on a scientist grade, who challenged his termination on the grounds that it was issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) instead of the university, an autonomous body.

While the court did not grant him specific relief, it ruled that no permanent appointment would be made to his position until the case was resolved, which has now been transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

This is how several petitions in the court are being dispensed with. Two of them can be accessed here.

Current Status of Cases

Of the approximately 79 employees dismissed under Article 311(2)(c), it is estimated that around 20 to 25 have filed petitions challenging their terminations. The exact number is difficult to ascertain due to the sensitive nature of these cases and the lack of publicly available information.

Many of these legal challenges are in the preliminary stages, with courts grappling with issues related to the admissibility of evidence and the extent of judicial review permissible in matters concerning national security.

Some cases have been pending for over two years without substantive hearings, reflecting the complexities involved. In short, while judicial avenues exist to contest terminations under Article 311(2), the combination of restricted access to evidence, judicial caution regarding national security, and prolonged legal procedures renders these challenges particularly cumbersome for the affected individuals.

A government teacher dismissed in 2022 challenged the termination in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Despite multiple hearings, the case has seen minimal progress, with the court yet to rule on the admissibility of classified evidence presented by the state.

A police officer terminated in 2021 filed a petition asserting that the dismissal violated principles of natural justice. The case remains pending, with the court repeatedly adjourning due to the state’s invocation of national security concerns.

A Policy Framed By Orders

In a prelude to the arbitrary dismissals, government employees were placed under surveillance and forbidden from expressing opinions on social media according to a circular in March 2021.

A month later, a special task force was created to monitor employees for “anti-national” links, investigate them and terminate them under Article 311(2) (c).

In August 2021, the CID wing of J&K Police announced that those involved in law-and-order issues, stone pelting, or crimes against state security would be denied passports and government jobs.

In September 2021, the Jammu and Kashmir administration implemented two significant circulars that substantially altered the employment landscape for government employees.

The first circular established a new requirement for J&K government employees seeking passports. Under this directive, employees must now obtain vigilance clearance before their passport applications can be processed. This measure was implemented under Article 311(2)(C) of the Constitution.

The second circular introduced an extensive framework for “discrete verification” of government employees and their family members. This verification process encompasses a broad range of potential offenses, including sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism, subversion, sedition or secessionist activities, facilitating foreign interference, incitement to violence and any activity deemed “unconstitutional”.

A particularly notable aspect of this verification system is that it extends responsibility to employees for the actions of their family members.

These set of circulars in quick succession suggest the creation of a mechanism for government employees to face scrutiny or consequences based on their opinions in the past or personal connections or relationships with individuals labeled as security threats by authorities.

Wider Pattern of Repression

The widespread application of Article 311(2)(c) in Jammu and Kashmir, and similar circulars, raises concerns that it is part of a wider pattern of political repression.

The crackdown on the government employees fits into the broader onslaught on civil liberties and freedom of expression in Jammu and Kashmir since August 5, 2019, when the erstwhile state was stripped of its special status and cleaved into two Union Territories.

Apart from experiencing the world’s longest internet shutdown, Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a spike in detentions under Public Safety Act (PSA) and arrests of journalists, political activists, lawyers and human rights defenders.

An unspecified number of employees have also been terminated on corruption and other charges, often without being provided a hearing, even in cases where Article 311(2) (c) was not invoked. One of these dismissals was recently held “illegal” by the court.

In January 2024, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that contractual appointments cannot be terminated without an opportunity of hearing when based on allegations that cast stigma on employees, while quashing a termination order on Anti-Corruption Bureau recommendations without due process.

The court noted that even contractual employees deserve natural justice and invoked Article 311 of the Constitution, maintaining that their “right of enquiry” was violated.

Many other cases challenging similar terminations or those under Article 311 (2) (c) are still languishing in courts.

Criticism Over Harsh Action

The dismissals have triggered criticism from several quarters. In its report in 2022, the Amnesty International while documenting how civil society, including journalists and human rights defenders, faced increased repression, arbitrary detentions, and restrictive media policies, expressed significant concerns about the fairness and transparency of such dismissals.

It said that the dismissals were not transparent and could fuel grievances and stifle dissent.

Legal experts opine that the abuse of dismissals without inquiry also undermines public confidence in government institutions.

The voices of criticism have become more pronounced after the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections even as the newly elected Omar Abdullah government has very limited powers either over terminations or detentions.

The dismissals have sparked concerns over transparency, justice, and political repression.

Mehbooba Mufti urged a review, calling the grounds “flimsy” and highlighting the hardships faced by families.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq called for reinstatements, warning of economic devastation.

Waheed Para condemned the government acting as “judge, jury, and executioner.”

Iltija Mufti criticized the lack of accountability, stating Kashmiris are “guilty until proven innocent.”

The recent dismissals in February also prompted former chief minister Omar Abdullah, who said, “If they had evidence against them and they could not prove their innocence when given a chance then the action is fine… but if the decision is taken without hearing them then the law says everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”

Secretive and Covert

Several terminated employees say they have no idea why they were targeted. They are also taken aback by the way the terminations are first announced publicly before the orders are served.

A high school teacher who was fired last year under arbitrary invocation of a clause in Article 311 using the same argument of “in the interest of the security of the state”, told the Kashmir Times that she was never provided any evidence of ‘being a threat to the state’ or of being heard. “I have been traumatised by the ordeal,” she says.

Some of the dismissals were based on familial connections. For instance, in October 2021, hardline Hurriyat leader, Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s grandson, Anees-ul-Islam, who was appointed as a research officer in Sher-e-Kashmir International Convention Centre (SKICC) lost his job.

A government teacher Farooq Ahmad Butt from Doda was suspended because his younger brother Mohammad Amin Bhatt was active in the district as a LeT militant.

In July 2021, Syed Ahmad Shakeel and Shahid Yousuf, sons of founder of militant outfit, Hizbul Mujahideen, Syed Salahudin had been terminated and accused of terror funding.

KAS officer, Assabah-ul-Arjamand Khan, the wife of jailed former militant Farooq Ahmed alias Bitta Karate, was dismissed in August 2022, and was accused of providing false information for seeking passport and of having links with foreign people on the payrolls of Pakistan’s intelligence outfit, ISI.

Assabah, a meritorious officer, was on the podium at an official function when someone sent her the news of her termination in a WhatsApp message, her former colleague revealed. Kashmir Times was unable to corroborate this from the dismissed officer.

Financial distress after dismissals

Similarly, the dismissed High School teacher learnt about it on the social media.

“I saw it on social media before I got any official letter. There was no hearing, no explanation—just a letter. My colleagues distanced themselves out of fear. I had no one to turn to. My students still call but even they are afraid to talk for long,” she said.

However, one of the sacked employees, a former professor at Kashmir University, said he was fired because he has been critical of the state’s handling of the turmoil in Kashmir in the past and until recently.

‘‘As an academic I felt it was my duty to impart knowledge not only from books but also from the realities around us. My lectures included a detailing of Kashmir’s contested history and the day-to-day oppression in Kashmir in recent decades,” he told the Kashmir Times.

“I was also very vocal in the classroom and never hesitated to speak of the brutalities of Indian administration in the Valley, for which I was reprimanded many times by the head of my department,” he added.

“After August 5, I was aware that people like me would not be tolerated,” the former professor says, adding that “these terminations are an attempt to silence critics and control them.”

The impact of these terminations is severely felt by families. A terminated professor’s son told the Kashmir Times, “He was the only earning member of the family. We suddenly have nothing to fall back on. What hit me most was that he had to sell his car just to pay for my education. It feels like our entire future is being taken away, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

(The identity of the reporter of this story has been withheld due to fear of potential reprisal.)

Content retrieved from: https://kashmirtimes.com/news/gap-between-shahs-claims-and-civil-service-purges-in-jk.