SC to hear plea challenging Omar's detention on Mar 5

QUOTE: “It is rare that those who have served the nation as members of Parliament, Chief Ministers of a state, ministers in the Union and have always stood by the national aspirations of India are now perceived as a threat to the state,” Sara Pilot

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 2

Noting that “it concerns liberty”, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear on March 5 Sara Abdullah Pilot’s petition challenging the detention of her brother and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah under the stringent J&K Public Safety Act.

A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra noted that a similar petition by Iltija Mufti against her mother and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti was also pending.

The top court had on February 26 issued notice to the Jammu and Kashmir administration and listed it for hearing on March 18.

Former Chief Ministers Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti have been slapped with the stringent PSA, which allows detention up to two years without a trial.

During the hearing, Attorney General KK Venugopal wondered why Sara didn’t go to the High Court and instead straightaway approached the top court.

The top court — which had on February 14 issued notice to the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration on Sara Pilot’s petition — asked the parties to file their affidavits and replies before the next date.

In its affidavit, the UT administration said Omar Abdullah continued to be a threat to public order, prejudicial to tranquillity in the region.

Terming her brother’s detention under the Public Safety Act “manifestly illegal”, Sara on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the February 5 order detaining him under the stringent law.

The fresh orders for detention of Omar and Mehbooba were issued hours after their six-month period of detention under an August 5, 2019, order was due to expire. It was alleged that on the eve of the reorganisation of the state, he had allegedly made attempts to provoke the people against the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A.

On the intervening night of August 4 and 5, 2019, Omar was put under house arrest and it was later learnt that Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, was invoked to justify such arrest, she said, demanding that her brother be produced before the top court.

Maintaining that there was no question of Omar being a “threat to the maintenance of public order”, Sara contended the detention of individuals, including political leaders, was clearly a mala fide exercise of power to ensure that the opposition to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution was silenced.

“It is rare that those who have served the nation as members of Parliament, Chief Ministers of a state, ministers in the Union and have always stood by the national aspirations of India are now perceived as a threat to the state,” she submitted.

The grounds on which Omar Abdullah’s detention has been ordered are “false and illusory to the extent of being non-existent and are not grounds within the contemplation” of the PSA, she contended.

The dossier handed over to him along with the order of detention under the PSA contained “patently false and ridiculous material” and he had been accused of “favouring radical thoughts” and of “planning and projecting his activities against the Union of India under the guise of politic”, while enjoying the support of “gullible masses”, the petition submitted.

The intent of exercise of power was to “incarcerate not just him (Omar) but the entire leadership of the National Conference as well as the leadership of other political parties, who were similarly dealt with, including Farooq Abdullah, who has served the state and the Union over several years… stood by India whenever the situation so demanded,” she submitted.

The “grounds for the detention order are wholly lacking any material facts or particulars which are imperative for an order of detention, she said in her plea, adding provisions of PSA were “wholly violated” and none of the conditions laid down to justify a detention order exist, “nor is even adverted to”.