J&K Arms Licence Scam: High Court Seeks Centre’s Compliance Report as IAS Officers Pandurang Pole and Shahid Iqbal Choudhary Withdraw Plea
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has allowed two IAS officers to withdraw their intervention plea in the Arms Licence Scam PIL and directed the Centre to submit a detailed compliance report on the pending prosecution sanction process.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has declined to entertain an intervention application filed by two senior IAS officers in connection with the long-running Jammu and Kashmir Arms Licence Scam case. The officers, Pandurang Kondbarao Pole and Shahid Iqbal Choudhary, subsequently withdrew their application after the court indicated that there were no sufficient grounds to grant the directions they had sought.
While disposing of the application as withdrawn, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajnesh Oswal directed the Union Government to submit a comprehensive compliance report detailing the steps taken in response to the court’s earlier orders, particularly concerning the pending decision on the prosecution sanction proposal.
The proceedings form part of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 9/2012, titled Sheikh Mohd. Shafi and Another versus Union of India and Others, which concerns alleged irregularities in the issuance of arms licences in Jammu and Kashmir.
Why Did the Two IAS Officers Approach the High Court?
The intervention application was filed by Pandurang Kondbarao Pole, a 2004-batch IAS officer of the AGMUT cadre, and Shahid Iqbal Choudhary, a 2009-batch AGMUT cadre officer.
Through their application, the officers sought permission to become parties to the pending PIL. They also requested the court to direct the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to consider their respective representations before taking a final decision on the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) proposal seeking prosecution sanction against them.
Appearing for the officers, Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan, assisted by Advocate Rahul Sharma, argued that the principle of deemed sanction should not be applied mechanically. The counsel maintained that the competent authorities should independently examine the circumstances of the case and take into account the representations submitted by the officers before arriving at a decision on the prosecution sanction proposal. However, the Division Bench found no justification for issuing the directions sought by the applicants.
The court observed that the officers’ request appeared to proceed on the assumption that the competent authorities would not appropriately examine their representations without judicial intervention.
Following these observations, their counsel sought permission to withdraw the intervention application and pursue the representations directly before the DoPT. The court permitted the withdrawal, clarifying that the officers did not require any separate judicial permission to pursue the remedies available to them under the law.
MHA Forwards Its Opinion to DoPT on Prosecution Sanction
During the hearing, Advocate S.S. Ahmed, appearing for the petitioners in the PIL, informed the court that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had submitted an updated status report in compliance with its order dated July 6, 2026.
According to the submissions made before the Bench, the MHA had completed its examination of the prosecution sanction proposal after consulting the investigating agency and the Jammu and Kashmir Government.
Following the consultations, the ministry finalised its observations and comments and forwarded its considered opinion to the DoPT for a final decision in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Taking note of this development, the petitioners’ counsel requested the court to direct the DoPT to place its final decision on the prosecution sanction proposal before it.
The Division Bench subsequently directed Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, appearing for the Union Government, to submit a comprehensive report detailing compliance with the court’s previous directions. The latest order therefore places renewed emphasis on the status of the administrative decision-making process concerning the prosecution sanction sought by the CBI.
Who Are the IAS Officers Involved?
The two officers who approached the High Court belong to the AGMUT cadre and have held important administrative positions. Pandurang Kondbarao Pole (IAS:2004) is currently serving as Secretary, Land and Building, Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Shahid Iqbal Choudhary (IAS:2009) is currently serving as Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh.
Both officers sought to intervene in the pending PIL and requested that their representations be considered by the competent authorities before a final decision was taken on the CBI’s prosecution sanction proposal.
It is important to note that the latest proceedings concerned their intervention application and the process of considering prosecution sanction. The court’s order, as described in the available report, does not determine the allegations against the officers or establish their guilt.
What Is the Jammu and Kashmir Arms Licence Scam?
The Arms Licence Scam relates to alleged irregularities in the issuance of arms licences in Jammu and Kashmir during the period between 2012 and 2016. The CBI investigation concerns allegations that arms licences were issued to non-residents on the basis of forged documents and in exchange for monetary consideration, allegedly involving officials who served as District Magistrates and other administrative authorities.
According to earlier reports, the investigation encompasses approximately 2.74 lakh arms licences issued during the period under scrutiny.The agency has sought prosecution sanction against several IAS officers in connection with the case. The proposals have remained subject to consideration by the competent authorities.
The investigation has drawn considerable attention because of the scale of the alleged irregularities and the involvement of officials who held important administrative positions in the Union Territory.
High Court Seeks Accountability on Pending Prosecution Sanction Process
The latest proceedings highlight the continuing judicial scrutiny of the administrative process surrounding the Arms Licence Scam investigation.
While the two IAS officers have withdrawn their intervention application, the broader PIL remains concerned with the progress of the investigation and the status of prosecution sanction.
The High Court’s direction to the Union Government to furnish a comprehensive compliance report is significant in this context, as it seeks a clear account of the steps taken to implement the court’s earlier directions.
With the MHA having forwarded its considered opinion to the DoPT, attention now centres on the final decision of the competent authority and the compliance report to be submitted before the High Court.
The case, which has remained before the court since 2012, continues to raise important questions concerning administrative accountability, the investigation of alleged irregularities in arms licence issuance and the statutory procedures governing prosecution sanction for public servants.
