With schools and colleges shut in Srinagar, agitations on the streets taking a violent turn, and distrust of the security forces running deep among the local population of Jammu & Kashmir, the Supreme Court on Friday attempted to bring both the Centre and the people of Kashmir to the negotiating table, kindling hopes of a solution to the crisis, which politically seems unmanageable.
Taking the unprecedented step, despite being confronted by the troubled past that surrounds the issue of finding permanent peace in Jammu & Kashmir, the Bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar urged the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association to consider the gravity of its offer and make positive suggestions by May 9, the next date of hearing.
The Bar had approached the court for banning use of pellet guns claiming it caused deaths and grievous injury to innocent bystanders. The claim has been refuted by the Centre, which asserted that in most cases, victims were stone-pelters.
The Bench, also comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, assured the senior members of the State HC Bar that they will direct the Centre to withdraw security forces provided violence stopped. “There has to be an end to violence. Suggestions must come and dialogue must commence but this bloodshed should stop. The people must be off the streets only then there will be an environment for talks where core issues can be addressed,” said the Bench.
Although the Bar claimed it does not represent the entire population, the Bench said that the Bar has been the vehicle for change, reminding the historic role played by members of legal fraternity in the freedom struggle of the country. “This is historic. You are part of history standing before this court where you can settle this issue. We will pass orders but there should be cessation of violence at your end. Get us this first step and we will consider directing the Centre not to use pellet guns for the next two weeks.”
The Bar leaders contended that that people who could talk on their behalf are under house arrest or in jail.
They were obviously referring to separatist leaders Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Yasin Malik. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi objected to this and wondered how the Bar could be interested in taking up the cause of separatists.
The AG made it clear that talks cannot be held if the Bar Association wanted separatists to be their interlocutors. He also drew the attention of the court to an affidavit filed by the HC Bar Association where they dubbed the Accession Agreement of J&K to be “controversial” and called the elections in the State as rigged.
“Is this a responsible bar association speaking and are they somebody to suggest we should have dialogue with Pakistan,” the A-G remarked, demanding that the HC Bar must give a “roadmap” indicating what they wanted to discuss and file an affidavit giving names of their interlocutors.
The A-G also suggested that such matters involving security of the country are sensitive and must not be debated by courts but political leaders of the Centre and the State, whom the people of the State have elected. However, when the court said it was ready to step back, the A-G clarified that the Centre was open for talks but the roadmap and the players must be made clear. He further indicated that if the other side chose people who are in custody, their release will be considered only if the law permitted so.