Restrictions in Kashmir: Aware about seriousness of issue, says SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was aware of the "seriousness" of issues related to the imposition of various restrictions following the abrogation of provisions of Article 370 in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. A three-judge bench headed by Justice N V Ramana said this when senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for one of the intervenors who has raised the issue of restrictions in Kashmir, argued that government has delayed the matter, which relates to rights of citizens, by taking adjournments.

The bench expressed its displeasure that neither Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing Jammu and Kashmir administration in the matter, nor any additional solicitor general were present during the hearing when the arguments commenced. "We are making it clear that on no grounds the matter will be adjourned. We will appreciate if the solicitor general appears in the matter and argues," the bench, also comprising justices R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai, said.

"We are aware of the seriousness of the issue," the bench said. Later, in the post-lunch session, two additional solicitor generals were present in the court for the hearing.

Dave said that from August to October, nothing happened in the matter pending before the apex court as the government took adjournments despite the fact that restrictions are imposed for over three months. When the bench asked Dave whether he was criticising the court for the delay in hearing the matter, the senior counsel said he was against the approach of the government.

"This is too serious a matter. The Supreme Court is showing the seriousness and rightly so by hearing it," he said. Dave said courts are the "supreme protector" of rights of citizens in the country and the apex court has always stood up to protect the rights of the people.

He said that rights of around seven million people in the valley are important and the government cannot justify these "blanket restrictions" by saying that these have been imposed as Kashmir has been affected by terrorism. "Arguments on the part of the state that all these actions are due to long time terrorism in Kashmir has to be rejected. This cannot come in the way of liberty and rights of the citizens. Tomorrow, they may say that in Naxal-affected areas, restrictions will be imposed. Can the state do this? They cannot take shelter under terror incidents," he said.

Dave referred to the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and said no such restrictions have been imposed there. "One restriction was imposed in Hong Kong that protesters cannot wear masks and that was struck down yesterday by the Supreme Court there", he said.

He argued that affidavit filed by the Jammu and Kashmir administration in the matter is "very casual" and they have not mentioned any "hardcore facts" to justify their decisions to impose these restrictions. "How can they impose such kind of restrictions under section 144 of the CrPC (power to issue order in cases of nuisance of apprehended danger)? It was unheard of in the history of the country," he said.

Dave also argued that the authorities cannot say in their affidavit that since this is a matter related to security, the court should "stay its hand off". "The government has said that please do not intervene in the matter because it is about national security issue," he said and added that government has sought adjournments in the case on this ground also.

"No, they have not said this before us," the bench said. To this, Dave said, "Not before this bench but government has said this before this institution."

Referring to Constituent Assembly debates, he said that B R Ambedkar had highlighted the significance of Article 32 of the Constitution which deals with right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights. "He (Ambedkar) had faith in this institution that whatever may happen in Parliament, this court will stood up to protect the rights of the citizens," he said.

The arguments in the case remained inconclusive and would continue on Thursday. Several petitions have been filed in the apex court against the restrictions, including on communication and internet, imposed in Kashmir following the abrogation of provisions of Article 370 on August 5.

A five-judge constitution bench of the apex court is separetly hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate the provisions of Article 370, which gave special status to erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)