The issue of eviction of illegal political occupants from government accommodations in Jammu and Kashmir has emerged as a complex and contentious matter, raising questions about the perceived double standards within the administration.
It is beyond imagination of the common masses that why the concerned quarters in the Union Territory's administration are delivering justice in instalments in the aforesaid case because instead of initiating action universally the concerned helmsmen in the UT preferred to adopt pick and choose policy with many political representatives belonging to parties in opposition facing the heat at the first instance, and many among those hailing from party in power in the country given undue liberties to use the government accommodations despite expiry of their rightful authority to acquire this property.
In this context, two former Ministers, ex-Member of Parliament and ex-Mayor of Jammu Municipal Corporation have been evicted from the Government accommodation provided by the Estates Department, which they were retaining despite not being entitled for the same as per the rules.
This information was reportedly shared by Ajay Bharti, Deputy Director Estates Department Jammu in the latest compliance report submitted to the High Court in response to the directions issued in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.17/2020 filed through Senior Additional Advocate General. The apparent deviation from the strict adherence to legal protocols by the Estates Department has fuelled concerns and prompted a critical examination of the prevailing situation. At the crux of the matter is the enforcement of law and the perceived bias in the eviction process.
The Estates Department, tasked with managing government accommodations, has been under scrutiny for a long time now what some view as a selective application of eviction procedures.
What is intriguing is the defiant administration which has been deliberately delaying and avoiding invoking the eviction as per the settled law and unnecessarily making it a complex issue. Administration's stretching a long rope shows that they give two hoots to the High Court's observations.
The question of why certain illegal political occupants seem to be exempt from eviction orders while others face stringent enforcement demands a meticulous examination of the underlying dynamics. One factor contributing to the perceived double standards may be political influence or affiliations. Instances of the Estates Department allegedly taking sides in favour of particular political figures raise concerns about the impartiality of the eviction process. This undermines the principle of equality before the law, as it suggests that the enforcement of regulations is influenced by political considerations rather than being guided solely by legal provisions. Furthermore, transparency and accountability within the Estates Department come under scrutiny when decisions appear to be inconsistent. The lack of a clear and standardized approach in dealing with illegal political occupants creates an atmosphere of ambiguity and raises questions about the department's commitment to upholding the rule of law. A robust and transparent process is crucial in fostering public trust and ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld without prejudice.
