Senior Advocate Abdul Majid Dar from the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has submitted a writ petition requesting an investigation into Justice Javed Iqbal Wani's actions. Allegedly, Justice Wani had swiftly sentenced Dar to judicial custody until 5:30 pm for criminal contempt of court, and Dar was reportedly held in the court premises by the police and CRPF for around 45-50 minutes.

The Senior Advocate has additionally submitted a letters patent appeal challenging the order issued against him on August 23. In his writ petition, he asserts that he was summarily sentenced to judicial custody until 5:30 PM without the proper observance of due process, Contempt of Court Act, or established procedures. He further contends that the entire incident transpired over a period of approximately 45-50 minutes.

The petition argues that the Senior Advocate was delayed by 30 minutes for a hearing, for which he had already instructed his client to arrange for alternative representation. Consequently, Senior Advocate Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri was engaged to present the case. However, Dar managed to reach the Court with a slight delay at 4 pm. Upon his arrival, when he requested a two-minute break from the bench, Justice Wani declined his request in a seemingly irate manner, which appeared as if he had lost his temper. In this tense moment, Dar, feeling exasperated, used the word "ridiculous."

Following this, the Judge swiftly initiated the process of dictating the order in open court and called for security officers, including CRPF personnel stationed outside Court No. 10, as well as the Registrar Judicial and Joint Registrar. Dar was ordered into judicial custody until 5:30 PM or until the Court adjourned that day.

As a result, Dar alleges that the Judge, who acted both as the judge and a witness, pronounced the verdict and punishment in an arbitrary manner. He further asserts that this confinement, lasting approximately 45 to 50 minutes, took place in violation of established legal principles. It caused immeasurable prejudice, casted unwarranted aspersions on his character, and resulted in immense prejudice to the rights of the complainant. Dar sees it as an act of insinuation and imputation that negatively affected the reputation of the many lawyers who had gathered at that time.

The order issued by the Judge on August 23 is as follows: “While the court was dictating the order in the matter, Mr. A. M. Dar, Senior Advocate, sitting in the court next to Mr. Qadiri, stood up and contended that he be also heard in the matter for the petitioner. In response, the court observed that since one Senior Advocate has already argued on behalf of the petitioner and has sought time for producing the copy of the suit, it would not be appropriate to rehear the matter on behalf of the same party through another counsel. On this observation of the court, Mr. Dar reacted furiously and shouted that “this is ridiculous” and that there is no bar in hearing other counsel for the same party in a matter. The court requested Mr. Dar to take his seat and allow the court to proceed with dictating the order in the matter, however, Mr. Dar interrupted the court proceedings and did not allow the court to dictate the order and also to deal with the rest of the cases in the list. The court continued to request Mr. Dar to take his seat and instead he continued to interrupt the court proceedings. The other advocates present in the court including few senior advocates also requested Mr. Dar to take the seat and to allow the court to proceed in the matter, but Mr. Dar refused and kept shouting and interrupting the court proceedings compelling the court to convey Mr. Dar that his conduct warrants initiation of contempt proceedings against him, in response thereof Mr. Dar removed his robes in the open court and created a scene.”

The court, after taking into account the legal principles and considering the requests made by lawyers, including senior advocates, and noting Mr. Dar's expressed remorse and repentance through his behavior, has determined that it is appropriate to discontinue the proceedings in this matter. As a result, the case will not proceed any further.

In his plea, Mr. Dar asserts that the order uploaded in the case contains "inaccuracies and omissions."

In the appeal filed against the order, the appellant, a prominent figure in the legal profession, a champion of justice, and a staunch supporter of the Constitution, humbly approaches this Hon'ble Court with deep respect, invoking its esteemed authority as provided under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The appellant implores this Hon'ble Court to address the significant miscarriage of justice, uphold the principles of fairness and equity, and restore the honor and reputation that have been unfairly tarnished.

The plea further states that a fundamental principle, known as the Doctrine of Reciprocation, becomes evident upon a thorough examination of the responsibilities assigned to both Hon'ble Judges and members of the Bar. The Bench and the Bar are two essential components upon which the structure of justice relies, and their collaboration is essential for the efficient dispensation of justice in our society. This mutually beneficial relationship emphasizes the crucial role played by both parties, and it is the duty of each to maintain the utmost standards of ethics and decorum.