Supreme Court for reviewing J&K restrictions

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for his part, contended that they were reviewing restrictions on a daily basis. (AFP File Photo)

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration how long they would continue with restrictions in the state, saying they may impose curbs in the name of national interest, but it has to be reviewed from time to time.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for his part, contended that they were reviewing restrictions on a daily basis.

Taking up a batch of petitions challenging the restrictions imposed in the state following scrapping of its special status, a bench presided over by Justice N V Ramana said it has been about two months since restrictions, particularly on the internet, were imposed.

"The restrictions are being reviewed daily. In around 99% area, no restrictions are there," Mehta, said.

He submitted before the bench, also comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai, that restrictions on the internet was going on as the issue has "cross border implications".

The court decided to hear the arguments on the pleas filed by Anuradha Bhasin and others on November 5.

The court, meanwhile, referred the petitions challenging the validity of Articles 370 and 35-A, already abrogated by the Centre on August 5, before the five-judge Constitution bench.

NGO 'We The Citizens' and others had filed a petition in the apex court in 2014 challenging the constitutional validity of Article 35A.

The court had already fixed the batch of petitions against August 5 decision before a five-judge bench on November 14.

In a related development, the court asked the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to pass appropriate order expeditiously on a habeas corpus petition on detention of businessman Mubeen Ahmad Shah.

His wife Asifa Mubeen sought quashing of the authorities' August 7 order of detention along with the grounds of detention under section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

The court deferred its hearing on her plea as it was contended that her brother-in-law had already approached the High Court.

DH Newsletter Privacy Policy Get top news in your inbox daily
GET IT
Comments (+)