oppn parties Did The Supreme Court Fail In Its Duty In Its Order On Curbs On J&K?

News Snippets

  • Government data placed in Parliament shows a sharp decline in job creation under its flagship employment generation schemes
  • The government is working to amend the Aadhar Act to make it possible for the Aadhar to be linked with the Voter's ID. Election Commission will simultaneously be empowered to link the two
  • Tapas Pal, former TMC MP, dies of cardiac arrest in Mumbai. He was questioned for his alleged involvement in the Rose Valley scam and gained notoriety for his rape remark in 2014.
  • Bypoll to panchayats in J&K, scheduled for March in eight phases, postponed due to security concerns.
  • Supreme Court says that overhead power transmission lines going through the Desert National Park in Jaisalmer in Rajasthan must go underground to save the Great Indian Bustard and the Lesser Florican
  • Pakistan not placed in FAFT blacklist but kept on the grey list with warning
  • The government is expected to announce duty cuts and other measures to combat business disruption due to coronavirus outbreak in China
  • South-East Asia loses its charm as a tourist destination after the coronavirus outbreak in China, airfares dip to new lows
  • DMK leader RS Bharathi says media is running like the red light area in Mumbai
  • A Delhi court issues fresh warrants for the hanging of the Nirbhaya convicts. Fixes the date for March 3
  • Supreme Court appoints a mediation team to ask Shaheen Bagh protestors to avoid blocking the road and shift to another venue
  • Supreme Court says peaceful protests cannot be denied in a democracy but also says that a balance must be struck as protestors cannot be allowed to block roads
  • Telcos pay part of their dues for AGR after the bashing from the Supreme Court
  • Debbie Abrahams, a Labour MP from UK, who was critical of India's action in Kashmir, not allowed to enter India. She was deported to Dubai from the Delhi airport
  • Sidharth Shukla wins Big Boss 13
Former principal secretary to PM Modi, Nripendra Mishra, appointed to head the temple committee of the Ram Janambhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust
oppn parties
Did The Supreme Court Fail In Its Duty In Its Order On Curbs On J&K?

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2020-01-13 08:05:28

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.

Has the Supreme Court order on the pleas against restrictions imposed in J&K failed the nation? For, despite pointing out several things as laid down in the law and then laying down norms for the exercise of executive power, it has not sought to quash the orders and lift the restrictions. The entire order reads like a manual of law and an advisory. But is not the Supreme Court a court of justice? Was it not expected to set right what it found wrong in the executive orders?

The apex court had asked the government to provide it with all the orders issued by the state administration from August 4, 2019.  The government provided some of them and expressed its inability to provide the rest. In its present order, the apex court has said that any executive order must give detailed reasons for imposing the restrictions so that aggrieved persons can challenge it. Since the government could not provide the orders and hence the reasons for imposing the restrictions, was it not the duty of the court to quash the orders and provide relief to the petitioners?

Then, it declared that the use of the internet for free speech and trade and commerce was a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). It also said that an indefinite suspension of internet services was not permitted by law. The internet is suspended in most areas of J&K for the last five months, which, in the absence of any government order stating the time period for the suspension, must count as being for an indefinite period. Yet it failed to give orders for the restoration of the service. Instead, it just asked the administration to review the situation within a week.

It further said that imposing restrictions, including under Sec. 144 of the CrPC, "cannot be used as a tool to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights". This observation might come in handy for the citizens to fight the government in the future, but it failed to provide relief to the people in J&K as the court did not quash the orders imposing restrictions under sec. 144 that the government has kept in place in several areas for more than five months now. The government can keep the restrictions in place indefinitely by issuing a fresh order after six months (for that is the maximum time it can keep the restrictions under sec. 144 against one order).

The court might well say that the government's action was due to "public emergency" and "in the interests of the nation" and hence it has not quashed the same. But if it thought so, it would have done well to define these terms in detail as these terms which are set as conditions for imposing restrictions have not been defined in detail anywhere in any law in India. Hence, they have always been misused by ruling dispensations. In these times when the "interest of the nation" is increasingly being subsumed with the interest of the ruling party, it will not suffice for the apex court to reiterate the position of law. Instead, it should explain and define in detail what constitutes "public emergency" and "interests of the nation".