New Delhi, December 1: The Delhi High Court on Monday issued notices to all defendants in the defamation suit filed by former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Secretary Arun Kumar Mehta, IAS (Retd.), over allegations of a purported “Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) scam”.
The notice was issued to retired IAS officer Ashok Kumar Parmar, whose allegations form the basis of the dispute, and to other parties named in the suit.
The Purushaindra Kumar Kurav has sought their responses and listed the matter for hearing on February 3, when arguments on Dr. Mehta’s request for an interim injunction will be taken up.
Mehta has filed the suit through Advocates Vasudev Sharan Swain and Nar Hari Singh (AoR), claiming damages of Rs 2.55 crore along with interim and permanent injunctions.
The suit asserts that the “JJM scam” allegations are fabricated, malicious and unsupported by any evidence. According to the pleadings, a sustained attempt was made to create the impression of a large-scale conspiracy where none existed, resulting in harm to his reputation and to the integrity of the mission’s work in Jammu & Kashmir.
The suit relies heavily on findings of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which conducted a detailed enquiry into the allegations. The ACB concluded that there was no financial misappropriation, that tenders were awarded to the lowest eligible bidders through proper e-tendering procedures, that no favouritism took place, and that no loss was caused to the exchequer. The enquiry was formally closed as “Not Substantiated”.
The pleadings further highlight that although it was publicly claimed that complaints had been filed before the CBI and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, RTI replies from both institutions confirmed that no such complaints were received.
According to the suit, the allegations were built on letters that were drafted and circulated but never actually filed. It also refers to an earlier petition filed before the CAT (Jammu Bench), which the Tribunal dismissed with Rs 1 lakh costs, describing it as “mischievous and frivolous” and intended to harass senior officials.
The suit points out that the purported “scam amount” fluctuated dramatically across various communications – Rs 1,000 crore, Rs 3,000 crore, Rs 4,000 crore, RS 6,000 crore and even above Rs 14,000 crore – reflecting sensationalism rather than factual consistency.
It states that no evidence of personal enrichment has been produced and emphasises the presence of strong digital safeguards in JJM operations in J&K, including BEAMS, online administrative and technical sanction systems, mandatory e-tendering, PaySyS, PROOF geo-tagged records, and multi-layered vetting, all of which leave robust audit trails.
On the ground, the suit records that more than 81% of physical works under JJM were completed in Jammu & Kashmir by June 2025, based on official and RTI data. It says that not a single instance has been identified where work remained unexecuted or where procurement occurred without competition across more than 3,780 village schemes, undermining the core allegations of large-scale manipulation.
The plaint also describes what it calls a pattern of selective leaks and amplification. It traces 26 letters authored and circulated between 2022 and 2025 and over 140 publications that appeared to track their timing, suggesting a cycle of unverified narratives gaining currency through repetition. The suit claims that this created an echo chamber that presented the allegations as established fact despite the absence of substantiating material.
According to the plaint, the false narrative targeted not only Dr. Mehta but also broader governance efforts in Jammu & Kashmir, attempting to undermine public confidence in improvements achieved under national programmes such as JJM following the abrogation of Article 370. It frames the litigation as both a defence of personal reputation and a necessary response to the weaponisation of misinformation.
Through the present suit, Mehta seeks protection of his professional standing, preservation of the credibility of JJM’s institutional framework, and a clear legal signal that the deliberate circulation of false and sensational allegations will not go unanswered in law.–(ANI)
