August 10, 2026

Zahoor Ahmad Bhat's Suspension: Understand The Chronology

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-08-28 14:13:52

About the Author

Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack

View all posts by this Author

The Supreme Court has taken a grim view of the suspension of Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, senior political science lecturer at a government college in Srinagar, after his appearance before the Supreme Court to argue in the case against the abrogation of Article 370. The matter was brought to the notice of the court by senior advocate Kapil Sibal who said that Bhat had been suspended and among other reasons, his suspension order also mentioned one of the reasons to be his appearance before the apex court in the abrogation case.

Bhat had appeared before the Supreme Court on August 23 after reportedly obtaining leave from his job. Just two days later he was suspended by the J&K education department for violating the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, the Jammu & Kashmir Government Employees Conduct Rules and the Jammu and Kashmir Leave Rules. When the matter was brought to the notice of the apex court bench, the first thing that the judges said was that the suspension so close to his appearance in the court was not appropriate if he had not violated any rules. SG Tushar Mehta admitted that the timing "was definitely not proper" but added that the suspension was related to other issues. The court then said that if the suspension was indeed linked to his appearance in the apex court, it would be seen as "retribution". The court directed both SG Tushar Mehta and AG R Venkataramani to speak to J&K Lt. Governor Manoj Sinha and find out what had actually happened and why the lecturer was suspended.

It is surprising that a government that often refers to chronology of events in Parliament when talking about contentious issues forgets that fact itself. In the past too, the Centre has sought to punish 'erring' officers for raising their voice against it by immediately acting against them. It should be no one's case that those employed with the government should get blanket immunity from prosecution and punishment for their actions if such actions go against service rules, their job contract or any other law in force. But it is the timing that raises the suspicion that Bhat was suspended for having the temerity to oppose the abrogation of Article 370. If that was the reason and if it does not violate any law or service rules, the government action was bad in law.