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

News Snippets

  • For the first time ever, Mukesh Ambani buys a 29% stake in Gautam Adani's Mahan Energen, a subsidiary of Adani Power to source 500MW of electricity from the company's power plant in MP
  • Stocks continue to rise on Thursday - Sensex gains 639 points to 73635 and Nifty 203 points to 22326
  • Golf - Indian Open: 3 Indians at tied 14th as Joost Luiten takes the lead with a wonderful 7-under 65
  • IPL: RR beat DC by 12 runs as Riyan Parag (84 off just 45 balls) shines
  • SP drops two candidates owing allegiance to Azam Khan from Rampur and Moradabad
  • In Assam, a controversy erupted after a picture of UPPL leader Benjamin Basumatary, lying on a stack of Rs 500 notes circulated on social media. UPPL is an ally of the BJP
  • AAP's Jalandhar-West MP Sushil Kumar Rinku joins the BJP. He was the only AAP Lok Sabha MP
  • Supreme Court dismisses Centre's plea to review its 2023 verdict in the PMLA case
  • Close save for passengers as they remain unhurt after the wings of two planes graze at Kolkata airport. Pilots derostered and inquiry ordered by DGCA
  • Bengal BJP leader Dilip Ghosh gets notice from the EC as well as the BJP for making ugly remarks about Mamata Banerjee's parentage
  • Sadanand Vasanth Date, who faught terrorists in the 26/11 attack and was awarded the Preisent's Police medal, has been appointed the head of the NIA
  • Centre will borrow Rs 7.5L cr in the first six months of FY25, nearly 50% of the target for the full year
  • 25 stocks, including SBI, will see same day trade settlements from today in the world's fastest settlement mode in both BSE and NSE
  • Stocks recover smartly on Wednesday: Sensex rises 526 points to 72996 and Nifty 118 points to 22123
  • Tennis: Rohan Bopanna-Matthew Ebden reached the semifinals of the Miami Open
Delhi Lt Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena says government cannot be run from jail, hints at President's Rule in the capital ////// In a dangerous incident, the wings of two planes grazed while taxiing on the runway at Kolkata airport, all passengers were safe but DGCA ordered an inquiry and the pilots were derostered
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.

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".