SC notice to Centre, J&K on plea for producing Farooq Abdullah

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday directed the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration to respond to a plea which has sought that former chief minister Farooq Abdullah, under detention following scrapping of the state's special status under Article 370, be produced before the court.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde and S A Nazeer issued notice to the Centre and the state administration and asked them to file their replies by September 30 on the plea by Rajya Sabha MP and MDMK leader Vaiko.

"Is he (Abdullah) under detention?," the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for Jammu and Kashmir.

Without going into the issue of whether Abdullah has been kept under detention, Mehta said, "I do not have a copy of the petition. I have to take instruction on this."

There was no word by the lawyers from any side during the hearing that the Jammu and Kashmir administration has slapped Public Safety Act to detain him under the stringent law.

Reports started pouring in later that 81-year-old Abdullah, a three-term chief minister of the state and five-time parliamentarian, has been detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.

Vaiko's counsel told the apex court that there were conflicting claims about Abdullah's status and he has been illegally detained by the authorities, which was an attack on his fundamental rights under the Constitution.

"The claim of Union Home Minister is that he (Abdullah) was not detained whereas the National Security Advisor has said that he is detained. There are conflicting claims," the counsel said, adding that citizens of Jammu and Kashmir are citizens of India and the authorities cannot treat a person like this.

The lawyer said Vaiko's submission in the plea that authorities should allow Abdullah to attend a "peaceful and democratic" annual conference, which was to be organised in Chennai on September 15 on the occasion of birthday of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C N Annadurai, has now become infructuous.

"I am pressing for the original prayer for producing him (Abdullah) before the court," the counsel said.

After the bench issued notice on Vaiko's petition, Mehta questioned his locus in filing a 'habeas corpus' petition -- a writ requiring a person under detention or arrest to be produced before a court.

"He (Vaiko) has no locus. How can he file a habeas corpus petition? He is not his relative. His (Abdullah) relatives have approached the high court there," Mehta said.

The bench however asked the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration to file their responses on Vaiko's plea.

In his plea, Vaiko, who said that he has been a close friend of Abdullah for the past four decades, has contended that constitutional rights conferred on the National Conference leader had been deprived of on account of "illegal detention without any authority of law".

"The actions of the respondents (Centre and Jammu and Kashmir) are completely illegal and arbitrary and violative of the right to protection of life and personal liberty, right to protection from arrest and detention and also against right to free speech and expression which is the cornerstone of a democratic nation," the plea has said.

"The right to free speech and expression is considered to have paramount importance in a democracy as it allows its citizens to effectively take part in the governance of the country," it said.

Vaiko said he had written a letter to the authorities on August 29 to allow Abdullah to travel to Chennai to attend the conference on September 15 but they have not responded.

He has said in his plea that he had spoken to Abdullah over phone on August 4 and had invited him to attend the conference.

He claimed that Abdullah had "verbally communicated" that he would be glad to attend the conference but on August 5, Abdullah along with other political leaders of Jammu and Kashmir were placed under "wrongful detention".

The Centre had on August 5 revoked Article 370 which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir and proposed that the state be bifurcated into two Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.