- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
The Jammu & Kashmir administration in its affidavit has submitted that the Congress leader was not under detention and this submission was accepted by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court today disposed of a Habeas Corpus petition filed for Congress leader Saifuddin Soz after the Centre told the Supreme Court in its affidavit that Soz was not under detention.
The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, and MR Shah today disposed of the plea after the government's affidavit claimed that Soz was never placed under any restraint and was always free to move.
Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu SInghvi sought to argue that Soz was kept under "illegal house detention" and was not allowed free movement but the Court accepted the submission made by the government in the affidavit filed. The Court, while disposing of the plea, said,
Jammu and Kashmir Administration in its affidavit before the Supreme Court has maintained that senior Congress leader Saifuddin Soz is neither detained nor put under house arrest after the abrogation of Article 370.
Rebutting the version put forth by Soz's wife Mumtazunnisa in the top court, the J&K Home Department has said the former union minister was never under any kind of restraint, and that he was always free to move.
The J&K Govt affidavit reads
Government of J&K has further stated that no question arises of giving a copy of the detention order or reasons to Soz and his family when "no such order has ever been passed" by any authority in J&K.
The affidavit further stated that there was a general restriction on movement of people on August 5, 2019, in the wake of abrogation of Article 370 but Soz was never detained or his movements were restricted by passing of any order.
Soz has been detained since August 5, 2019 when the special rights given to Kashmiri people under Article 370 was abrogated and the State of Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi arguing for Soz had stated that “the authority making the order(s) of detention did not communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made, and no copy of the detention order was provided despite repeated attempts”.
The plea filed on May 29 stated that Soz was denied the right to make a representation against the order(s) of detention, in flagrant abuse of constitutional guidelines, as well as the statutory scheme.
"By keeping the latter under a prolonged, indefinite detention, the authorities indulged in the violation of his right to life and personal liberty," read the plea.