SC judge recuses from hearing plea against Omar Abdullah’s detention

Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar, one of the three Supreme Court judges hearing the plea against former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah’s detention recused from the case on Wednesday (February 12).

“I will not be part of this (matter),” Justice Shantanagoudar said without elaborating on the reasons. The other judges on the bench were justices NV Ramana and Sanjiv Khanna.

Justice Shantanagoudar’s decision led the top court to defer the hearing on Sara Abdullah Pilot’s petition. A new bench will be constituted to take up the case on Friday (February 14).

Omar Abdullah, who has been in custody for six months, was detained hours before the Centre approached Parliament on August 5 last year to scrap Article 370 of the Constitution that granted special status to the erstwhile state, now split into two union territories.

Also read: Omar Abdullah’s sister moves SC challenging his detention under PSA

As he completed six months in custody, the government ordered his continued detention under the Public Safety Act that empowers authorities to hold any person for two years.

His sister rushed to the Supreme Court against the detention order that she claimed was illegal and filed a Habeas Corpus petition. She argued that Omar Abdullah was a votary of peace and there was overwhelming evidence in the form of tweets and public statements to prove the same.

Sara Abdullah Pilot also extensively quoted from the government’s dossier on the former chief minister that formed part of the material which formed the administration’s decision to issue the detention order.

Five grounds raised by Sara Abdullah in her petition:

• Material on the basis of which the detention order was passed was not disclosed or supplied to Abdullah.
• The detention order is vague and irrelevant without any material facts and particulars and showed non-application of mind by the District Magistrate who passed the order.
• The dossier handed over to Abdullah along with the order of detention under the PSA contains patently false and ridiculous material.
• There is enough evidence to prove that there was no likelihood of Abdullah indulging in activities which would be prejudicial to public order.
• No fresh grounds or material exist to detain Abdullah after his earlier detention under Section 107 CrPC lapsed.