Senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad told the Supreme Court on Wednesday he accepted the country was facing a problem of terrorism but that didn’t mean the government could “paralyse” the lives of seven million people in Jammu and Kashmir.
Azad, a former chief minister of the state that has since been split into two Union Territories, said the government claims prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been withdrawn from all police station areas but there were no such orders in the public domain.
The bench of Justices N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai reserved its verdict on pleas Azad and Kashmir Times editor Anuradha Bhasin have filed, challenging the curbs imposed after the government scrapped the state’s special status under Article 370.
The court observed that a balance must be struck between the rights of citizens and national security.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Azad, said the country was facing the problem of terrorism. “No one can deny this fact. We have to deal with this situation together. But this does not mean that you can paralyse the entire seven million people of the state.”
Sibal then referred to the prohibitory orders. “Not a single order of magistrate(s) on Section 144 (has) said the restrictions are being imposed on account of national security. Nowhere it is reflected in the orders nor does it rely on statistics. The Section 144 order only speaks of law and order situation,” he said.
Sibal said the administration had said prohibitory orders had been lifted from all police station areas except during night. But no order has been brought on record to show that the prohibitory orders have been withdrawn, he said, adding the court must accept the contention only on affidavit.
“Security personnel in Jammu and Kashmir know the mischief-makers. They can identify them but there cannot be any Section 144 order for keeping in confinement seven million people of the state. They have to pass the test of reasonableness laid down by the apex court.”
Advocate Vrinda Grover, who appeared for Bhasin, termed the curbs “unconstitutional” and said the restrictions need to pass the test of proportionality.
The bench asked the petitioners and the Jammu and Kashmir administration to file written submission as early as possible and reserved its verdict.