Do you wish to shun your ‘secessionist’ ideology: J&K HC to Kashmir Bar chief

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir high court (HC) on Thursday asked incarcerated Kashmir High Court Bar Association president Mian Abdul Qayoom if he would like to shun his ‘secessionist’ ideology and leave it to the government to take a decision after such a representation.

While dismissing an appeal by Qayoom against his detention under the Public Safety Act, the division bench of the court comprising justices Vinod Chatterji Koul and Ali Mohammad Magrey endorsed the stand of advocate general that the FIRs and \grounds of detention against Qayoom relate to secessionist ideology of the detainee.

“While addressing his arguments on the ideology of the detainee, the advocate general submitted that such ideology cannot be confined to time to qualify it to be called stale or fresh or proximate, unless the person concerned establishes by conduct and expression that he has shunned the ideology,” the court said. “In light of the argument taken by the advocate general, we leave it to the detainee to decide whether he wishes to take advantage of the stand and make a representation to the authorities concerned to abide by it,” it asked.

The justices also left it to the discretion of the government to take decision in terms of provision(s) of the JK PSA on any such representation, if made by the detainee.

Qayoom was detained from his house in Srinagar on August 5, 2019 ahead of the abrogation of Article 370. He was later booked under the PSA on August 8 and first shifted to Agra Jail and then to Tihar. Since then he has been booked under PSA multiple times.

The division bench quoted the submissions of advocate general that the FIRs and grounds of detention depict “secessionist ideology of the detainee, entertained, developed, nourished and nurtured by him over decades.”

The court also put on record the stand of Qayoom’s counsel ZA Shah. “The counsel had submitted that even if it be assumed that the detainee was holding such an ideology in 2010, he has not violated any law. He submitted that Article 19 of the Constitution gives the citizen a right of speech and a citizen can speak on whatever his ideology may be; he does not commit an offence as long as he does not violate any law,” the judgment quoted.