LI Network
Published on: 29 August 2023 at 11:04 IST
The Supreme Court has directed the Attorney General of India to investigate the suspension of Advocate and lecturer Zahoor Ahmad Bhat from his senior lecturer position at a government school in Srinagar.
This suspension came one day after Bhat presented arguments before the Constitution Bench, which is currently handling petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370.
The Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice Surya Kant, was informed by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, that Zahoor Ahmad Bhat had been suspended from his position due to his participation in the ongoing hearing.
Sibal stated, “Milords, Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, the academician, who argued for a few minutes and because he argued what he argued, he was suspended from the faculty on 25th August. He took leave for 2 days and when he was back he was suspended on 25th August. These things should not happen in our country. I am sure the Attorney General will look at it.”
In response to this, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) requested Attorney General R. Venkatramani to evaluate the situation.
The CJI commented, “Mr. Attorney General, just see what Mr. Sibal is saying.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta promptly responded, “I have checked it after reading it in the newspapers. I did check up, and even the Advocate General is here, what is reported in the newspaper may not be the whole truth. He files petitions, and there are other issues. He appears in various courts and there are other issues also. We can place it before your lordships.”
Sibal further commented, “But then he should have been suspended earlier, why now? He gave written submissions here. This is not fair and this is not the way our democracy should function.”
“The order refers to this, he appeared here, and the next day he was suspended. I am sure the Attorney will use his good office,” said Sibal. “Officers are here, and it will be taken care of. Not concerning this, everyone has a right to appear before your lordship; it can never be by a way of retribution,” replied the Solicitor General.
Justice Gavai also highlighted, “Mr. SG, the close proximity between the arguments and the order.” In response, the SG conceded, “Timing is not proper, I bow down on that. No argument on that.”
Furthermore, Justice Kaul commented, “The timing and reference to this aspect, if it is there in the letter. I don’t know; I have not seen the letter, but if the reference to his appearance here is there, then there is a little problem.”
Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, appearing in person, had filed an intervention application in the batch of petitions concerning the abrogation of Article 370. On August 23, he expressed to the Court, “I teach Indian politics to students in Jammu and Kashmir, and it is very embarrassing and difficult for me. People like me, since 2019, when we teach this beautiful Constitution and beautiful democracy, then they will ask if we are truly a democracy since post 19th August 2009.
This is very difficult for us to answer. Basically, it was unbelievable on 4th August 2019, when despite the Governor’s assurance that Article 370 would not be abrogated, a curfew was imposed at midnight.”
Bhat further submitted that “Within two days, on 5th and 6th August, the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was downgraded into two union territories, the union territory of Ladakh and the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. These impugned actions are completely in violation of the Constitution and the morality of the Constitution of India.”
Previously, the Supreme Court allowed the application filed by Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Shah Faesal, seeking the removal of his name from the list of Petitioners challenging the abrogation of Article 370.
Shah had resigned from his post in 2018 to protest the continuous loss of life in Kashmir and was reinstated in the services after the Central government rejected his resignation.