03-29-2024     3 رجب 1440

‘Past events’ justify Internet restrictions in Kashmir: Centre tells apex court

‘Pleas alleging complete clampdown in the Valley incorrect’
Apex court queries counsel over Kashmir-Hong Kong analogy

 

 

November 22, 2019 | AGENCIES /NEW DELHI

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the restrictions in Kashmir were necessary to prevent public protests, cross-border terrorism and untoward incidents.
Past events such as public protest in the wake of killing of Hizb commander Burhan Wani in 2016 justified the present measures, submitted the Attorney General K K Venugopal.
"When Burhan Wani was killed, there was a lockdown for 3 months. If we see the past record of militant attacks, it would have been foolish to not take such action as a preventive measure", the AG told the bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai.
Subversive elements cause the gathering of people with the "push of one button on the phone". The congregation of these elements is facilitated by internet.
"Are we to keep quiet? Was it not appropriate for Govt not to anticipate law and order problem? We cannot allow separatists and militants to operate", AG said.
The AG cited the SC decision in NIA v Zahoor Watali, where the Special Court had found links between militants, Hurriyat leaders and stone-pelters. If there was no communication blockade, thousands of messages would have been sent to coordinate militants, said the top law officer.
The Court was hearing the petitions filed by Anuradha Bhasin (Executive Editor, Kashmir Times), Congress MP Ghulam Nabi Azad etc., challenging the communication blockade, internet shut down and other restrictions imposed in the region in the wake of abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The AG added that the Government of India should be congratulated for handling the situation "without a single life lost and single bullet fired".
"Do not look at the nitty gritty of Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Look at the broader picture".
Earlier in the day, the Court heard the petitioners and also the Solicitor General for J&K administration. The hearing will continue on Monday
The Centre told the court that it had been relaxing the curbs imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after abrogation of Article 370 and claimed that the pleas alleging "complete clampdown" were incorrect and irrelevant.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Union Territory Jammu Kashmir, commenced his submissions before a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana and justified certain restrictions imposed in the region after the abrogation of Article 370 which had given special status to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Mehta told the bench that relaxations have been given in the region since August 13 and it was not a complete clampdown as projected by petitioners and said that the pleas including one filed by senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, alleging restrictions, are incorrect, irrelevant and have out-lived their utility.
He said that various central legislations were not applicable in the state before abrogation of Article 370 and laws such as Right to Information and prohibition of child marriage were not applicable to the state earlier.
The Solicitor General told the bench that the authorities have applied their minds in imposing or lifting curbs in the region and services such as post-paid mobile service restarted on October 14 in Jammu and Kashmir.
"Schools have reopened, moreover 917 schools were never shut after abrogation of Article 370," Mehta told the bench also comprising justices R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai.
"Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?", the Supreme Court queried the counsel who sought to draw an analogy between Kashmir and Hong Kong, which is facing unprecedented pro-democracy protests for over five months.
The Hong Kong court in a recent decision ruled against the law to ban face masks. The Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, had proposed a ban in the backdrop of increasing demonstrations and the protesters had adopted a strategy of using masks to hide their identities in public.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing an intervenor in a matter connected with restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir following revocation of Article 370, cited before a bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana the Hong Kong court's recent decision against a law banning face masks.
Arora sought to draw an analogy between the restrictions imposed on people in Kashmir and Hongkong. She told the bench that in the Hong Kong judgement, the test of proportionality was applied.
Justice Ramana replied that the Indian Supreme Court is also far superior in upholding fundamental rights of citizens. Arora contested, "The situation in Hong Kong is actually worse. The citizens conducted peaceful protests... Proportionality test was applied. Citing this, I am just drawing an analogy."
Justice B.R. Gavai, who is also on the bench, querying her on the backdrop of protests in Hong Kong, said "Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?"
Justice Gavai insisted that the apex court has delivered an order upholding rights of the citizens, "Why bank on Hong Kong judgement?"
Justice Ramana said the top court has a long tradition of upholding rights of the citizens.
Arora said a large Army deployment in Jammu and Kashmir leads to the creation of an "inert citizen", which is not in the interest of democracy, as this citizen behaves with a fear on his mind.
"For people to speak out, they should be fearless", she insisted while referring to psychological and physical restraints.
"It was the people of Jammu and Kashmir who were worst affected by abrogation of Article 370. They should have been allowed to air their views", she told the court.
The Hong Kong High Court had recently ruled that a ban on wearing face masks during public demonstrations was unconstitutional.

‘Past events’ justify Internet restrictions in Kashmir: Centre tells apex court

‘Pleas alleging complete clampdown in the Valley incorrect’
Apex court queries counsel over Kashmir-Hong Kong analogy

 

 

November 22, 2019 | AGENCIES /NEW DELHI

The Centre on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the restrictions in Kashmir were necessary to prevent public protests, cross-border terrorism and untoward incidents.
Past events such as public protest in the wake of killing of Hizb commander Burhan Wani in 2016 justified the present measures, submitted the Attorney General K K Venugopal.
"When Burhan Wani was killed, there was a lockdown for 3 months. If we see the past record of militant attacks, it would have been foolish to not take such action as a preventive measure", the AG told the bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai.
Subversive elements cause the gathering of people with the "push of one button on the phone". The congregation of these elements is facilitated by internet.
"Are we to keep quiet? Was it not appropriate for Govt not to anticipate law and order problem? We cannot allow separatists and militants to operate", AG said.
The AG cited the SC decision in NIA v Zahoor Watali, where the Special Court had found links between militants, Hurriyat leaders and stone-pelters. If there was no communication blockade, thousands of messages would have been sent to coordinate militants, said the top law officer.
The Court was hearing the petitions filed by Anuradha Bhasin (Executive Editor, Kashmir Times), Congress MP Ghulam Nabi Azad etc., challenging the communication blockade, internet shut down and other restrictions imposed in the region in the wake of abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The AG added that the Government of India should be congratulated for handling the situation "without a single life lost and single bullet fired".
"Do not look at the nitty gritty of Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Look at the broader picture".
Earlier in the day, the Court heard the petitioners and also the Solicitor General for J&K administration. The hearing will continue on Monday
The Centre told the court that it had been relaxing the curbs imposed in Jammu and Kashmir after abrogation of Article 370 and claimed that the pleas alleging "complete clampdown" were incorrect and irrelevant.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Union Territory Jammu Kashmir, commenced his submissions before a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana and justified certain restrictions imposed in the region after the abrogation of Article 370 which had given special status to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Mehta told the bench that relaxations have been given in the region since August 13 and it was not a complete clampdown as projected by petitioners and said that the pleas including one filed by senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, alleging restrictions, are incorrect, irrelevant and have out-lived their utility.
He said that various central legislations were not applicable in the state before abrogation of Article 370 and laws such as Right to Information and prohibition of child marriage were not applicable to the state earlier.
The Solicitor General told the bench that the authorities have applied their minds in imposing or lifting curbs in the region and services such as post-paid mobile service restarted on October 14 in Jammu and Kashmir.
"Schools have reopened, moreover 917 schools were never shut after abrogation of Article 370," Mehta told the bench also comprising justices R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai.
"Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?", the Supreme Court queried the counsel who sought to draw an analogy between Kashmir and Hong Kong, which is facing unprecedented pro-democracy protests for over five months.
The Hong Kong court in a recent decision ruled against the law to ban face masks. The Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, had proposed a ban in the backdrop of increasing demonstrations and the protesters had adopted a strategy of using masks to hide their identities in public.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing an intervenor in a matter connected with restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir following revocation of Article 370, cited before a bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana the Hong Kong court's recent decision against a law banning face masks.
Arora sought to draw an analogy between the restrictions imposed on people in Kashmir and Hongkong. She told the bench that in the Hong Kong judgement, the test of proportionality was applied.
Justice Ramana replied that the Indian Supreme Court is also far superior in upholding fundamental rights of citizens. Arora contested, "The situation in Hong Kong is actually worse. The citizens conducted peaceful protests... Proportionality test was applied. Citing this, I am just drawing an analogy."
Justice B.R. Gavai, who is also on the bench, querying her on the backdrop of protests in Hong Kong, said "Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?"
Justice Gavai insisted that the apex court has delivered an order upholding rights of the citizens, "Why bank on Hong Kong judgement?"
Justice Ramana said the top court has a long tradition of upholding rights of the citizens.
Arora said a large Army deployment in Jammu and Kashmir leads to the creation of an "inert citizen", which is not in the interest of democracy, as this citizen behaves with a fear on his mind.
"For people to speak out, they should be fearless", she insisted while referring to psychological and physical restraints.
"It was the people of Jammu and Kashmir who were worst affected by abrogation of Article 370. They should have been allowed to air their views", she told the court.
The Hong Kong High Court had recently ruled that a ban on wearing face masks during public demonstrations was unconstitutional.


  • Address: R.C 2 Quarters Press Enclave Near Pratap Park, Srinagar 190001.
  • Phone: 0194-2451076 , +91-941-940-0056 , +91-962-292-4716
  • Email: brighterkmr@gmail.com
Owner, Printer, Publisher, Editor: Farooq Ahmad Wani
Legal Advisor: M.J. Hubi
Printed at: Sangermal offset Printing Press Rangreth ( Budgam)
Published from: Gulshanabad Chraresharief Budgam
RNI No.: JKENG/2010/33802
Office No’s: 0194-2451076
Mobile No’s 9419400056, 9622924716 ,7006086442
Postal Regd No: SK/135/2010-2019
POST BOX NO: 1001
Administrative Office: R.C 2 Quarters Press Enclave Near Pratap Park ( Srinagar -190001)

© Copyright 2023 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved. Quantum Technologies

Owner, Printer, Publisher, Editor: Farooq Ahmad Wani
Legal Advisor: M.J. Hubi
Printed at: Abid Enterprizes, Zainkote Srinagar
Published from: Gulshanabad Chraresharief Budgam
RNI No.: JKENG/2010/33802
Office No’s: 0194-2451076, 9622924716 , 9419400056
Postal Regd No: SK/135/2010-2019
Administrative Office: Abi Guzer Srinagar

© Copyright 2018 brighterkashmir.com All Rights Reserved.