• News
  • India News
  • Balance between individual liberty and national security has to be maintained, says SC on J&K lockdown
This story is from October 1, 2019

Balance between individual liberty and national security has to be maintained, says SC on J&K lockdown

Balance between individual liberty and national security has to be maintained, says SC on J&K lockdown
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said a balance had to be struck between personal liberty and national security amid heated exchanges as the Jammu and Kashmir administration questioned the motive behind petitions against restrictions on people of the state and the petitioners reminding the apex court about its judgement in ADM Jabalpur case in which it ruled that personal liberties were not to be necessarily upheld in the face of the executive after declaring Emergency.

As the proceedings getting out of control with lawyers shouting at each other, a bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai had to intervene and warned them to maintain decorum of the court proceedings. The verbal dual started when senior advocate Meenaxi Arora, appearing for two intervener in the case, pleaded the bench to step in to protect the rights of J&K people which are being violated by the action of the Centre and the state and referred to SC’s infamous emergency era judgement in ADM Jabalpur case when the court failed to protect the rights of citizens.
Before she could complete her sentence, solicitor general Tushar Mehta strongly opposed her submission and told bluntly that the petitioners in the case are “not espousing the case of national interest but something else”. Referring to 2016 lockdown in Kashmir valley in the aftermath of encounter of militant Burhan Wani, he said, “Where were these people when there was complete lockdown for three months.”
Mehta then told the court that normalcy is being restored in J&K and people are allowed now to move freely during day time. He said that connection of all landline phone had been restored and all basic facilities like health care and education are being provided to people.
He, however, told the bench that internet connection and mobile phone cannot be restored at this stage in valley as it would be misused by the unscrupulous elements to circulate provocative messages and fake propaganda through social networking sites like WhatsApp which court create law and order problem.
“It is to the credit of the government that these measures have succeeded in full and not a single bullet has been fired till date and there has not been any loss of life on account of any police firing. I state and submit that the restrictions are only temporary in character, as the following facts will show that step by step and stage by stage there has been a relaxation in the restrictions based upon the evaluation of the situation in each area,” the government said.

It said that restriction under Section 144 of J&K Criminal Procedure Code had been withdrawn/ relaxed in all police stations in Kashmir, Jammu and Ladak division. In an affidavit filed in court, the government said that health services are functioning normally in the entire state and around 16.54 lakh patients have been attended in OPD after August 5 and doctors have performed more than 15,000 major and 65,000 minor surgeries. It said that more than nine lakh LPG cylinders have been delivered to consumers and around eight lakh quintals of ration have been distributed.
While hearing petitions filed by CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury and wife of NRI businessman Mubeen Ahmad Shah and others including Executive Editor of Kashmir Times Anuradha Bhasin, activist Tehseen Poonawala and Foundation of Media Professionals, the bench asked them why they are not approaching the J&K HC which is functioning normally.
“The high court is in better position to monitor the case on restriction and prohibition. Why should all cases come to Supreme Court. The HC is also a constitutional court and if you are not satisfied then you can come to SC,” the bench said. But senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Yechuri and Shah, insisted that apex court should hear the case. The court thereafter asked the government to file a response within two weeks but made it clear that their cases will not be listed on an urgent basis and will be taken up in due course.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA