SRINAGAR: In an interesting turn of events, the suspension of Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, a lecturer in education department in Jammu and Kashmir has raised eyebrows, prompting questions about the timing and motivation behind the decision. The issue was raised by senior advocate Kapil Sibal before the Supreme Court, reports reaching from Delhi suggest.
Bhat’s had appeared before the Supreme Court of India, where he presented a case against the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. A resident of Budgam, he teaches political science in a state run higher secondary at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar.
The Chief Justice of India, along with a constitution bench, has sought an explanation from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta regarding the swift suspension of Bhat right after his appearance in court. The suspension, which took effect immediately, was ordered by the Jammu and Kashmir administration just days after Bhat’s appearance in the Supreme Court opposing the abrogation of Article 370.
Kapil Sibal, brought the matter to the attention of the constitution bench, which is headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud. During the proceedings, Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the Solicitor General about the timing of the suspension and the apparent correlation between Bhat’s appearance in court and his subsequent suspension. Solicitor General Mehta responded by expressing his awareness of the situation, suggesting that the media reports might not capture the full context. He implied that Bhat’s suspension could be attributed to various factors beyond the court appearance.
“AG, just see what has happened. Someone who appears in this court is suspended now…have a look into it. Talk to LG. If there is something else, then it’s different. But why such close succession to him appearing and then getting suspended,” Chief Justice observed according to website, Newsdrum. “Justice Gavai added that if it was during appearance, that may be retribution. “What happens to so much freedom?”
Kapil Sibal, however, questioning the decision’s timing and emphasising that if there were concerns regarding Bhat’s actions, he should have been suspended earlier rather than right after his appearance in the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General Mehta conceded that the timing of the suspension was not appropriate, acknowledging the questionable nature of the sequence of events. This acknowledgment was followed by his statement expressing deference to the court’s stance.
Bhat, a senior lecturer of political science in Jammu and Kashmir, found himself at the center of controversy when he appeared in the Supreme Court to argue against the abrogation of Article 370. The move, which stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, prompted Bhat to voice his dissent within the legal framework. During his appearance, Bhat, who is also an advocate, passionately argued that the abrogation undermined the principles of cooperative federalism and violated the Indian Constitution.
Swiftly, the government placed his services under suspension for violating various provisions, including those within Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations and Government Employees Conduct Rules.
Bhat, who is one of the petitioners challenging the reading down of Article 370, had gone to the top court to plead for himself.
“I teach Indian politics in J&K,” Bhat was quoted as having said during his arguments before the top court by The Hindu. “It is… very difficult for me to teach since 2019 about this beautiful Constitution. When students ask if we are a democracy after 2019, it is difficult to answer. Despite the assurance made by the then Governor Satya Pal Malik on August 4 that the Article 370 will not be abrogated, a curfew was imposed at midnight and former chief ministers were detained.”
Bhat asserted that Jammu and Kashmir was downgraded and split “in violation of the morality” of Indian constitution. “It was against people’s right to democracy as the consent of people of J&K and Ladakh was not taken into consideration. The move was against cooperate federalism and supremacy of the Constitution,” he is reported to have told the top court.
One of vital arguments of Bhat was that the 36-member Legislative Council was in place when the then Governor made recommendations regarding Article 370 to the President. “J&K’s Legislative Assembly was dissolved but the Legislative Council was intact on August 4-5, 2019. The Governor had the option to take the Council’s concurrence. The 36-member Council was ignored and many detained from them,” he pleaded.
from Kashmir Life https://ift.tt/HnhuMcL
via IFTTThttps://kashmirlife.net
No comments:
Post a Comment