NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Wednesday expressed shock over an affidavit filed by the Jammu and Kashmir’s lawyer’s body terming the accession of the state into the Union as “mysterious” and “controversial” and that rigged elections are the main reason behind the street violence and protests in the Valley.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, while addressing the lawyers appearing for Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, said, “We are slightly shocked.” The state’s Bar Association, which was asked by the apex court to help in finding an amicable solution to the protests and stone-pelting, filed an additional affidavit giving reasons for the continuing unrest in the Valley.
However, the affidavit accused the accession of the state to the Indian Union, rigging of polls since 1947 and the security forces for the violence. “We only tried to point out the historical reasons,” the association’s lawyers said. The Bar association has insisted on a “unilateral declaration of ceasefire”, withdrawal of security forces, revocation of AFSPA and stoppage of using pellet guns.
When solicitor general (SG) Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the Centre, referred to certain controversial portions of the affidavit, the bench said, “We wanted to know the reasons (of protest from the bar body), which is a mistake.”
The SG said the plea was pending in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and highlighted the controversial averments made by the Bar Association in the additional affidavit. “They say that the instrument of accession is mysterious and controversial. They allege that every election is rigged. India and Pakistan have fought three wars on the issue... the state is in a troubled state for the last 70 years,” the SG said referring to the affidavit. “None of the elections held in the state inspired confidence as they all have been rigged,” he said quoting the contents of the affidavit.
The court has posted the case for further hearing on January 18. Earlier, the apex court had observed that no meaningful dialogue was possible unless violence stopped in the Valley. The court was hearing the appeal of the Bar Association’s Executive Member against the September 22 order of the High Court which had rejected the Bar Association’s plea seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns on the ground that the Centre had already set up a Committee of Experts through its memorandum of July 26, 2016, for exploring alternatives to pellet guns.