The Supreme Court of India has directed Attorney General R Venkata Ramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to investigate the suspension of Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, a senior political science lecturer at a government school in Srinagar. Bhat was suspended shortly after his appearance before the Supreme Court concerning the abrogation of Article 370.
A Constitution bench consisting of five judges and led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud convened to hear petitions challenging the modifications to Article 370. The issue of Bhat’s suspension was raised by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal during the proceedings. Bhat, an advocate, represented the petitioners in the case on August 23.
Sibal informed the bench, which also included Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, that Bhat’s suspension occurred a day after his appearance before the Supreme Court. He also mentioned that the suspension order issued on August 25 explicitly referred to his appearance.
Solicitor General Mehta cautioned against relying solely on newspaper reports, stating that they might not present the complete truth. In response, Sibal presented the actual order, remarking, “It is not just from the newspaper. The order itself, August 25, I have it with me.”
Mehta highlighted that there were additional factors involved, as Bhat was appearing in various courts. He assured the court that he would provide all relevant details. Sibal expressed his concern over the timing of the suspension, asserting that if there were issues, they should have been addressed earlier.
Addressing Attorney General R Venkataramani, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the importance of examining the situation. He stated, “Just see what has happened. Somebody who appears in this court is suspended. Have a look into it. Just talk to the Lieutenant Governor.”
The Chief Justice acknowledged the possibility of other factors influencing the suspension but questioned the timing of the decision in relation to Bhat’s appearance before the court. Mehta acknowledged the improper timing of the suspension and offered his respect. The Chief Justice commented, “if there is something apart from this, that’s different” and questioned, “but why in such close succession to appearance before us!” Mehta, nonetheless, stated that such actions cannot be driven by retribution.
Justice Gavai drew attention to the close proximity between Bhat’s arguments and his suspension order. Mehta concurred, admitting that the timing was indeed not appropriate. Justice Gavai pointed out “the close proximity between the arguments and the order,” prompting Mehta to respond, “the timing is definitely not proper. I bow down.”
Justice Kaul echoed these sentiments and highlighted the issue of the reference to Bhat’s appearance in the order. “Timing and reference to this aspect. I don’t know. I have not seen the order. But if the reference to his appearance here is there, then there is a little problem,” added Justice Kaul.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General assured the court that they would thoroughly investigate the matter.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
