The Supreme Court remarked that stone pelting in Jammu and Kashmir is “not a very ordinary action” while hearing Shabir Shah’s bail plea. The court asked him to approach the J&K government for his detention order as NIA seeks more time to respond.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday made an important remark while hearing the case of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah. The bench said that pelting of stones in Jammu and Kashmir is not a very ordinary action.
The court also asked Shah to approach the Jammu and Kashmir government to get a copy of his detention order.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the case and gave the National Investigation Agency (NIA) three weeks to file its response to Shah’s latest affidavit.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NIA, pointed out that the affidavit had mentioned some new facts and also highlighted Shah’s alleged links with Pakistan-based terror networks.
Senior advocate Collin Gonsalves, representing Shabir Shah, told the bench that his client’s family had not received the detention order. He said Shah wanted a series of detention orders that have been passed against him since 1970.
However, Solicitor General Mehta opposed this argument and said that this issue was never raised before the Delhi High Court.
The bench then advised Gonsalves, saying,
“You ask the government to provide you the details. Why ask in bail proceedings? It’s over a 50 years.”
During the hearing, Gonsalves argued that Shabir Shah had already spent 39 years in jail, and most of the cases against him were based on similar charges — that his speeches were followed by stone pelting. At this point, Justice Mehta remarked,
“Pelting of stones in this state is not a very ordinary action.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court had already refused to grant interim bail to Shah in the terror funding case. However, it had issued a notice to the NIA asking for its response within two weeks on Shah’s plea that challenged the Delhi High Court’s June 12 order denying him bail.
The Delhi High Court, in its earlier judgment, had refused to grant Shah bail, noting that there was a strong possibility of him engaging in similar unlawful activities or influencing witnesses if released. Shah was arrested by the NIA on June 4, 2019.
According to the NIA, in 2017 a case was registered against 12 people for allegedly conspiring to raise and collect funds to cause disruption in Jammu and Kashmir.
The funds were reportedly used for activities like stone pelting, damaging public property, and waging war against the Indian government. The agency accused Shah of playing a “substantial role” in supporting separatist and militant activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
He was alleged to have incited the public by making inflammatory speeches, encouraging slogans for secession, paying tributes to slain militants by calling them “martyrs”, and receiving funds through hawala channels and LoC trade, which were allegedly used to promote violence in the region.
The Delhi High Court, while denying bail, had clearly stated that though the Constitution gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute.
The court had observed,
“This right cannot be misused under the garb of carrying out rallies wherein, a person uses inflammatory speeches or instigates the public to commit unlawful activities, detrimental to the interest and integrity of the country.”
The High Court had dismissed Shah’s appeal against the trial court’s July 7, 2023 order that refused him bail. It had also rejected his alternative request to be placed under “house arrest” instead of jail custody. The court said this could not be allowed considering the seriousness of the allegations against him.
The High Court had also pointed out that Shah was the chairman of the unlawful organisation Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP).
The order included a detailed table listing 24 criminal cases pending against him, showing his involvement in several cases related to promoting secession and conspiracies to separate Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.
Through this observation, the Supreme Court has once again highlighted the seriousness of violent acts like stone pelting in Jammu and Kashmir and the long-standing allegations against separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Shabir Shah
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
