A view of the Supreme Court.
Credit: PTI Photo
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Attorney General R Venkatramani to talk to Jammu and Kashmir's Lieutenant Governor to ascertain why Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, a teacher of a higher secondary school, was suspended - just after he argued before the Constitution bench of the court against the dilution of Article 370.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud was informed of the action initiated against Bhat on August 25.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that this is not the way a democracy should function.
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, asked the Attorney General to verify the facts of the matter as to why action was initiated against Bhat - in close proximity of his appearance before the court.
"If it is due to (his) appearance, that may be retribution. What happens to so much freedom," the bench asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that what has been reported in the newspapers may not be the whole truth. "He has been appearing in various courts. There are other issues, we can place before the court," Mehta said.
"Why in close succession of his (Bhat's) appearance before us," the bench asked Mehta.
"If there is something else, then it is a different matter. But why in such close succession to him appearing and then getting suspended," the bench asked.
On this, Mehta agreed and remarked "The timing is not proper."
The Attorney General, for his part, submitted that he would verify the facts of the matter.
On Friday, an order was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Jammu and Kashmir administration, School Education, Alok Kumar, placing Bhat under suspension.
The order described him as a “delinquent officer”.
"Bhat, senior lecturer, political science, presently posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect for violation of provisions of J&K CSR, Jammu and Kashmir Government Employees (conduct) Rules,1971,” the order stated.
Bhat had argued on behalf of the petitioners on Wednesday.