Supreme Court should reopen Saifuddin Soz case

The Jammu and Kashmir administration’s submission before the Supreme Court that Congress leader Saifuddin Soz was not under detention was known to be wrong, and was proved to be false the next day with photographic evidence. The 83-year-old leader’s wife had challenged his detention in the court, but the petition was disposed of after the government submitted an affidavit which said that he was ‘’free and not under detention’’, has never been detained or placed under house arrest, and that ‘’there are no restrictions on his movement’’. It also told the court that Soz had gone out of the state by air twice last year. The contention was proved wrong when photographs and videos of Soz were presented the next day, in which he was seen standing behind the boundary wall of his residence mounted with barbed wire, trying to talk to the media but being grabbed and pulled away by policemen. Shouting could also be heard.

It is not just surprising, but is a matter of serious concern that the government grossly misrepresented Soz’ status in the highest court of the land. There cannot be any interpretation possible of the leader’s forced confinement in his own home as anything other than detention. It is not known whether any written orders are there for his confinement and whether any technical differences between detention, arrest and any other kind of robbing of freedom are applicable in this case. But the truth is that he has not been allowed to go out of his home for one year from August 5, 2019. The government’s claim that he has gone to Delhi twice is also only technically correct. These trips were visits to meet his ailing sister on humanitarian grounds and for his own medical check-up on a recommendation from his doctor. He had to take permission from the government on both occasions. To present the visits as proof of his freedom was therefore wrong. The government has however reiterated its position even after the video has gone public.

Soz has himself said that he is not a free man, he is not being allowed to go out of his house and that the government has lied to the court. He has also said that he would go to the court again. This is a serious matter, and the court should reopen the case and consider the petition for his release again. It should take the new evidence into account and question the government why it was misled on the matter. There should be consequences for trying to mislead the court and presenting wrong facts to it, especially on a matter relating to the fundamental rights of citizens.