<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to explain the basis for the detention of Kashmir Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom in jail here after the lapse of one year period. </p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra decided to take up the matter on July 23.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Dushyant Dave questioned the detention of 73-year-old Bar leader beyond one year period as per the order passed under the Public Safety Act.</p>.<p>"We would like to know the basis for his detention in Tihar jail here," he asked.</p>.<p>Mehta, for his part, sought 10 days time to respond to the contention. He also claimed that he has not been served with a copy of the petition.</p>.<p>Countering Mehta's submission, Dave questioned the additional time sought in a habeas corpus petition.</p>.<p>The court then asked Mehta to respond to the plea, pointing out all cases cited against him pertained to the year 2010 and prior to that.</p>.<p>Qayoom challenged the validity of the High Court's judgement of May 28 dismissing his plea against the detention following the scrapping of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019. </p>.<p>The septuagenarian-petitioner, a senior advocate, contended that the Hig Court's order was illegal, unconstitutional and untenable as it erred in relying upon four FIRs lodged against him in the year 2008 and 2010.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to explain the basis for the detention of Kashmir Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom in jail here after the lapse of one year period. </p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra decided to take up the matter on July 23.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Dushyant Dave questioned the detention of 73-year-old Bar leader beyond one year period as per the order passed under the Public Safety Act.</p>.<p>"We would like to know the basis for his detention in Tihar jail here," he asked.</p>.<p>Mehta, for his part, sought 10 days time to respond to the contention. He also claimed that he has not been served with a copy of the petition.</p>.<p>Countering Mehta's submission, Dave questioned the additional time sought in a habeas corpus petition.</p>.<p>The court then asked Mehta to respond to the plea, pointing out all cases cited against him pertained to the year 2010 and prior to that.</p>.<p>Qayoom challenged the validity of the High Court's judgement of May 28 dismissing his plea against the detention following the scrapping of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir on August 5, 2019. </p>.<p>The septuagenarian-petitioner, a senior advocate, contended that the Hig Court's order was illegal, unconstitutional and untenable as it erred in relying upon four FIRs lodged against him in the year 2008 and 2010.</p>
