Page:Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India and Ors.pdf/10

This page needs to be proofread.
indicate that the restriction imposed was contemplated to be of a temporary nature.
  • The orders passed under the Suspension Rules placed on record by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, regarding the restrictions pertaining to the Internet and phones (either mobile or telephone were ex facie perverse and suffered from non­application of mind.
  • Learned counsel submitted that the orders were not in compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Suspension Rules. Further, the orders did not provide any reasoning as to the necessity of the restrictions, as is required under the Suspension Rules.
  • Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the orders are based on an apprehension of likelihood that there would be danger to a law and order situation. Public order is not the same as law and order, and the situation at the time when the orders were passed did not warrant the passing of the orders resulting in restrictions.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1164 of 2019

  • Learned senior counsel submitted that the orders of the authorities had to be produced before the Court, and cannot be the subject of privilege, as claimed by the State.
  • It was submitted that the conduct of the State, in producing documents and status reports during argumentation, was improper, as it did not allow the Petitioners with sufficient opportunity to rebut the same.
  • Learned senior counsel submitted that the Union of India can declare an emergency only in certain limited situations. Neither any 'internal disturbance' nor any 'external aggression' has been shown in the present case for the imposition of restrictions which are akin to the declaration of Emergency.
  • With respect to the orders restricting movement passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C., the learned senior counsel contended that such an order is made to deal with a 'law