Journalism of Courage
Referring to allegedly inflammatory statements of some mainstream politicians in J&K to back the Centre’s move to impose restrictions in the wake of the August 5 amendments to Article 370, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the administration “cannot wait for people to die”.
Appearing for J&K, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justices N V Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai that the government was aware that “any reformative measure for the good of people will have some reactions from separatist elements”. He said “these factors weighed with our officers” while putting in place the “preventive measures”.
Mehta said that in the run-up to August 5, there was speculation that the Centre would do something about Article 35A or Article 370 and many leaders in the Valley made threatening public statements. On July 28, he pointed out, “a former Chief Minister” stated that “tinkering with Article 35A will be akin to setting a powder keg on fire. If any hand tries to touch Article 35A, not only that hand but the whole body will be burnt to ashes.”
Although Mehta did not name the leader concerned, he appeared to be referring to PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti.
Mehta referred to another statement by Mehbooba where she had said there will be no one left to carry the Tricolour if something happens to Article 35A. She said that “local militants are sons of the soil and our assets”, and urged the ulema “who are assisting terror from across the border” to respond to the Centre’s moves, he submitted.
Mehta then referred to statements by former CM and current Lok Sabha MP Farooq Abdullah of the NC and Hurriyat leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and said these were not part of right to protest but “instigating people for uprising”.
He said many of these statements were on public platforms such as Twitter, and “these are some of the facts by which I will be able to justify the internet restriction”. Mehta said it is “absolutely wrong to say Internet was banned in the whole state”. He said there were no restrictions in Jammu and Ladakh regions of the erstwhile state.
He said anti-India propaganda was being pushed through the Internet in a large way, and hashtags used to multiply the message by thousands of times and incite people. “It’s a cyber-war, (a) psychological war emanating from across the border,” he said, adding that many tweets originated from Twitter handles of Pakistani Army.
“These are exceptional (situations) which require exceptional remedies,” Mehta added.
On allegations that people were not allowed to move out, the S-G said individual movement was not restricted but only congregations.
Mehta said that daily reports of the CID were submitted to SPs, who in turn submitted them to magistrates before “need-based restrictions” were put in place. He said he had with him some of these reports, including on cross-border threats, and could show it to the bench, but to no one else.
Senior advocates H Ahmadi and Advocate Vrinda Grover opposed this and said if the government wanted to claim privilege, it must put the same on affidavit and they will also file their objections. Grover said if the court relies on arguments based on these reports, then she would be handicapped since she cannot respond without knowing the contents.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing for the petitioners, said there was no need to look into the reports as it can be assumed that such reports about cross-border threats do exist. The court agreed to this and said it will proceed on that assumption.
Sibal also countered the government’s claims that the situation was normal in J&K. Referring to figures submitted by Mehta stating that over 99 per cent students attended exams for Class XI, Sibal said, “What else could they do? They will lose a year if they don’t…. But that doesn’t mean children were attending schools.”
