J&K Ladakh HC College: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court expresses pain over 13 year delay setting up college

“Had the project proceeded unhindered, the College would have been operational long ago, providing substantial educational and developmental benefits to the region. Instead, successive generations of students have borne the cost of protracted proceedings and governmental ambiguity,” read the judgment dated December 10.

“Public interest, especially the educational aspirations of the youth, must remain paramount, the court added.

Case

In 2012, the then government initiated a process for the establishment of a government degree college at Aishmuqam in Anantnag district.

On April 28, 2018, after representation of many villages including Siligam to authorities concerned, the government sanctioned a degree college in Siligam, just 37kms from Aishmuqam.

Following this, a writ petition was filed in the high court by residents of Ashimuqam challenging the government order dated April 28, 2018.

In 2019, another government order was issued to the officials of the education department for establishing the college at Aishmuqam against which the residents of Siligam filed another petition in 2020.

The high court on December 10 dismissed this petition observing that successive generations of students have borne the cost of “protracted proceedings and governmental ambiguity”.

Two expert committees, constituted in 2012 and 2018 respectively, unequivocally concluded that Aishmuqam was the feasible location for the proposed college. These expert assessments were never replaced, reviewed, or contradicted by any subsequent study, material, or reasoning, the court said.

Observations

“Educational institutions are not mere buildings, they are instruments of social advancement and empowerment, a direct measure of the State’s commitment toward education, nation-building, and inclusive growth,” said the court.

The court added that education, particularly at the higher level, shapes informed citizens, strengthens democratic values, and enables social and economic development.

Lamenting further, the bench said, “What ought to have been a straightforward administrative exercise has, due to repeated contradictions, avoidable delays, and absence of a clear stand, escalated into prolonged litigation, thereby frustrating the very purpose for which the institution was sanctioned.”

Expressing “deep concern” the court said that an entire generation of students, who could have availed the convenience, accessibility, and academic opportunities offered by a local degree college, were compelled to travel long distances.

Such avoidable hardship to young students and their families, caused solely by the administrative lapses of the authorities, weighs heavily upon court’s conscience, it added.

“When the establishment becomes entangled in prolonged disputes, it is not merely a procedural setback but a loss to the community at large and to the nation’s development. The opportunity to pursue higher studies within reasonable proximity is essential for students of rural areas , who often lack the means to travel long distances or relocate,” said the court.

Further saying that while it cannot undo the hardship already endured and the present case must stand as a cautionary reminder, the court asserted that the public authorities, before embarking on litigation or maintaining adversarial positions, must exercise restraint and adopt decisions grounded in public interest and expert inputs.

The court emphasised that in matters concerning education and public welfare, the administration and the judiciary must act with concerted diligence to ensure that decisions are neither derailed nor rendered infructuous by the mere passage of time.