New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to furnish orders related to the shutdown and detentions in Jammu and Kashmir, Bar and Bench reported.
The three-judge bench of Justices N.V. Ramana with R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai was hearing a petition filed by Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin challenging the restrictions placed on media and communications in the Valley.
The bench reportedly asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that why the orders concerning the imposition of restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir were not placed on record. Mehta told the court that a rejoinder was filed by the Centre when the matter was taken up last time. However, Bhasin’s lawyer Vrinda Grover pointed out the government’s rejoinder had not touched upon the orders imposing restrictions.
Also read: Centre, J&K Suppressed Orders Related to Communication Blockade, SC Told
“Is it done purposefully?” the court asked.
Mehta said that the petition filed by Bhasin originally sought only the lifting of curbs in the region. “The situation on the ground is changing gradually. The petitioner has now expanded the scope of the prayer to seek production of the orders also,” he argued.
According to Bar and Bench, the SC has said that if the Centre does not “wish to divulge reasons for not placing any order on record, an affidavit detailing the reasons is to be filed for the same”.
The bench has fixed the next date of hearing on October 25.
Mehta agreed to place the order on record but with a condition. “We will place on record these orders but nobody can seek an appeal on executive orders concerning national security, especially not the petitioners,” said Mehta.
The government had imposed restrictions on public movement and communications in Jammu and Kashmir on August 4, one day before it scrapped the state’s special constitutional status in parliament.
According to the administration, the restrictions had been placed to prevent law and order problems.
“The respondent two (J&K administration) has suppressed relevant orders/ notifications/circulars/ directions/documents which are essential for proper adjudication of the present writ petition and require judicial scrutiny for determining its constitutionality,” Bhasin said in her counter affidavit.
They have filed “evasive pleadings, to avoid a determination on the constitutionality of the relevant orders, while emphasising situations of the past rather than the present,” the counter-affidavit said.