SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has affirmed the disengagement of a Special Police Officer (SPO) who ceased reporting for duty following alleged threats from militants. The court ruled that the ongoing militant threat does not provide sufficient justification for an SPO to refuse their duties, and that SPOs do not possess the same service protections as regular police personnel.
The Chenab Times has learned that Justice Sanjay Dhar, in an oral judgment delivered on August 10, 2026, dismissed a petition filed by Hemo Hamid Wani. The court found that authorities were not obligated to conduct an inquiry or offer Wani a chance to be heard before his disengagement.
Wani, represented by advocate Shabir Ahmad Dar, had challenged an order from January 24, 2026, by which the Director General of Police, J&K, rejected his representation against his disengagement. The respondents were represented by the counsel for the Union Territory.
Hemo Hamid Wani was initially appointed as an SPO in 2012. According to his petition, he was posted with the IRP 18th Battalion in Reshipora, Shopian. He stated that turmoil began in 2015 while he was on medical leave at home. Subsequently, he claimed to have received life threats from militants, which prevented him from returning to his duties. Upon eventually reporting to his place of posting, he alleged he was not allowed to resume duty.
After his subsequent representations to the authorities yielded no positive outcome, Wani filed a writ petition in the High Court. On August 30, 2025, the court directed the authorities to consider his representation and issue a reasoned order. Following this directive, the Director General of Police rejected his representation, leading to the current petition.
Wani’s arguments centered on the illegality of his disengagement, asserting that no inquiry had been conducted, no formal charge framed, and he was not afforded an opportunity to present his case. He contended that these actions violated Articles 16, 21, and 311 of the Constitution, along with Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules.
The High Court, however, rejected the assertion that an SPO holds the same service protections as a regular police officer. Justice Dhar noted that Wani’s engagement as an SPO was temporary and on consolidated wages, as per Section 18 of the Police Act. Such an engagement, the court stated, does not confer the status of a civil post governed by statutory service rules.
The court referenced its prior judgment in Bilal Ahmad Sheikh v State of J&K & Others, which had followed a Division Bench ruling in State of J&K v Mohammad Iqal Mallah. This precedent established that SPOs are appointed for specific exigencies when the regular police force is insufficient. Their engagement is described as “not of a permanent nature but it is only to take care of a particular contingency.”
While Section 19 of the Police Act grants SPOs certain powers, privileges, and protections akin to ordinary police officers in specific contexts like crowd control, the court clarified that this provision does not extend the service-condition protections afforded to regular police personnel. Therefore, the court concluded, SPOs are not entitled to the protections available under Police Rules or Civil Service Regulations.
Consequently, Justice Dhar held that Wani was not entitled to a right of hearing or an inquiry prior to his disengagement. The court stated that it was not obligatory for the respondents to conduct an inquiry or provide an opportunity for hearing before disengaging his services as an SPO.
Furthermore, the court addressed Wani’s own stated reason for not reporting for duty – the alleged threats from militants. Even if Wani had a right to be heard, Justice Dhar ruled that the admitted fact of him ceasing duty due to militant threats provided sufficient grounds for termination of his engagement. The court remarked that if a police official, regardless of rank, becomes fearful and refuses duties due to militant threats, the nation’s safety is jeopardized. The justification offered by Wani was deemed “unacceptable to say the least.”
The court also determined that, in the specific circumstances of this case, granting Wani an opportunity to present his case before disengagement would have been an “empty formality.” The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the DGP’s order of January 24, 2026, which had rejected Wani’s representation. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
