Srinagar/New Delhi: During the 11th day of the ongoing Article 370 hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal pointed out the suspension of a Kashmiri lecturer, Zahoor Ahmad Bhat who was suspended from his job by the Jammu and Kashmir administration shortly after presenting his arguments against the abrogation before the top court.
Advocate Kapil Sibal, in his remarks before the bench, noted that Bhat had been suspended from his faculty on August 25, just days after his appearance in the court and expressed his concern about the timing of the suspension, suggesting that the sequence of events raised questions about the functioning of democracy.
Responding to Sibal's comments, the bench directed Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to look into the matter.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) pointedly asked the Attorney General to confirm the situation from LG Manoj Sinha surrounding Bhat's suspension.
“Mr AG please look what Mr Sibal is saying,” CJI said.
Attorney General R Venkataramani replied by saying that he had looked into the matter after reading reports in the newspapers, but he indicated that there might be more to the story than what had been reported.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta echoed these sentiments, “suggesting that there were other factors at play.”
“I have checked my lords after reading the newspapers. What is reported in the newspapers may not be the whole truth. There are other issues. He appears in various courts and there are other issues. We can place it before court,” SG Mehta told the bench.
However, the Chief Justice and other justices on the bench expressed their concern about the timing of Bhat's suspension, which appeared to coincide closely with his appearance in the Supreme Court and his argument against the abrogation of Article 370.
Justice SK Kaul noted the "close proximity between the arguments and the order," while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conceded that the timing of the suspension was indeed improper.
Justice Gavai raised the issue of freedom of expression and the potential for retribution against someone expressing their views in a court of law.
“If it's during appearance, that may be retribution...what happens to so much freedom,” Justice Gavai asked.