Bar Association to challenge Mian Qayoom’s detention in SC

Srinagar: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association (HCBA) on Thursday challenged the “legality and validity” of a recent High Court judgement upholding the detention of its president, Mian Abdul Qayoom under Public Safety Act over his “separatist ideology”.
A statement issued by the HCBA’s Execute Committe said that it would challenge the judgement through a case before the Supreme Court by filing a SLP.
The statement said that the judgement by a two-judge bench shall have a “far reaching consequences on detention matters of individual members of the society leaving no scope for an individual or organisation to show even little bit of dissent based on ideology of a person or group of persons”. The judgement, the statement said, has “also left no scope to call in question the arbitrary exercise of power with a view to silence the voices of voiceless” and “provides a blank cheque to be encashed by executive as and when they would deem fit as the judgement leads to believe in a system that thrives on punishing thoughts and belief and leaving it open for executive to act as judge, jury and executioner in total violation of the norms setup in the constitution”.
The Bar further alleged that “very few cases are being taken up for consideration under the category of ‘Extremely Urgent Matter’ leaving lot of scope and time to deal with other urgent matters including liberty matters, which are gathering dust in the registry for want of final hearing”.
Due to this, the period of detention gets expired rendering the petitions infructuous, the association added while urging the government to take appropriate steps for regular opening of courts subject to following of guidelines regarding COVID-19 pandemic.
The Bar Association demanded that the bank located within court premises be made accessible to the lawyers as is being done in case of judicial employees.
The Bar also appealed the Chief Justice to look into the grievances of the advocates about hearing of liberty and other matters and making scope for hearing cases categorised other than “Extremely Urgent matters” and period within which cases are being listed after filing be minimised , together with considering opening of courts in physical mode at earliest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.