New Delhi: The hearing on the plea by Sara Abdullah Pilot challenging the detention of her brother and former J&K CM Omar Abdullah under the Public Safety Act will now be heard on February 14 as Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar recused himself from hearing it. Justice Shantanagoudar was part of the bench also comprising Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
“I am not participating in this matter,” Justice Shantanagoudar said at the outset without citing any reason for his recusal. Initially the matter was directed to be listed for Thursday but later on a request by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sara Abdullah, it was directed to be listed for Friday.
A brief order passed by the court said, “List before another Bench since Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar expressed his inability to participate in the hearing of the matter.” Recording the request by Sibal that the matter be listed on Friday, the court directed its registry to obtain necessary directions from Chief Justice S.A. Bobde for the listing of the matter on February 14, before an appropriate bench.
Omar Abdullah, his father and former J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and other senior Kashmiri leaders are under detention since August 4, 2019, in the wake of the abrogation of Article 370. Sara Abdullah in her petition has contended that there could not be any material for further detaining a person, who is already under detention for last six months.
Describing detention as “illegal,” Sara in her petition said, “The grounds for the detention order are wholly lacking any material facts or particulars which are imperative for an order of detention.”
Recounting the public service rendered by Omar Abdullah both in the J&K as Chief Minister and as a central minister, the petition said, “It is rare that those who have served the nation as MPs, CMs, ministers in the union and have also stood by the national aspirations are now perceived as a threat to the State.” It further said, “It is therefore of the utmost importance and of the utmost urgency that this court protects not only the individual’s Right to Life and Liberty but also protects the essence of Article 21.”
