Mohammad Aleem Syed, a law graduate from Kashmir who is now based in Delhi, last communicated with his family on 4 August. Six days later, 24-year-old Syed filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking information about his family and the court’s permission to visit them. He tried travelling to Kashmir on 14 August, but the flight to Srinagar was cancelled. Syed had to wait two more weeks before the apex court heard his petition. On 28 August, the Supreme Court allowed Syed to travel to Kashmir to meet his parents, and directed him to “report back to the court” with an affidavit about the visit immediately upon his return.
Without any concrete information about his family’s well-being, Syed had filed his writ petition because he feared his family had been detained. On 5 August, the home minister Amit Shah announced in the Rajya Sabha that the government had read down Article 370 of the Indian constitution to nullify the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir. The announcement came with a heavy security clampdown, a communications blackout and large-scale detentions. The internet was shutdown, mobile phone networks suspended, and cable television services cut off. Political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir, such as the former chief ministers Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, were detained and later arrested. A curfew was also imposed, restricting the movement of residents, and putting Jammu and Kashmir in a state of lockdown.
Syed’s family—his parents and two elder brothers—live in the Anantnag district of south Kashmir. After his flight was cancelled, the airline had offered to book him on another flight, but he had declined because of the uncertainties created by the lockdown. “Anantnag is a more volatile area compared to Srinagar,” he explained. “From Srinagar, it is a journey of almost two hours. It would have been almost impossible for me to travel from the airport to Anantnag because the whole valley is under lockdown. Had I been able to communicate with my family I would have told them to get a curfew pass and receive me at the airport. Since they had no idea when I would be coming or how I would be coming, it was practically impossible for me to go there.”
Along with Syed’s petition, the Supreme Court bench comprising the chief justice Ranjan Gogoi, SA Bobde and Abdul Nazeer also heard 13 other petitions concerning Jammu and Kashmir. These included cases that ranged from challenging the reading down of Article 370, seeking access to people who were untraceable and easing the restrictions imposed in the Kashmir Valley.
Two petitions were filed regarding the inability to trace people. In addition to Syed, Sitaram Yechury, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), had also filed a writ petition stating that Mohamad Yusuf Tarigami, the party’s Jammu and Kashmir state secretary, had been wrongfully detained. Yechury said that there was a lack of information about Tarigami’s whereabouts. On 9 August, Yechury and D Raja, the Communist Party of India general secretary, attempted to visit Kashmir. They were briefly detained at the airport, denied entry into the city and sent back to Delhi.
“Mr. Tarigami is in wrongful custody and no information has been given,” Shadan Farasat, a Supreme Court advocate who represented Yechury, said. He added that Tarigami is “quite unwell.” Like Syed, the Supreme Court allowed Yechury to travel to Kashmir and ascertain Tarigami’s whereabouts and medical condition. The court directed Yechury, too, to “file a report supported by an affidavit” upon his return, further noting that he could travel to Jammu and Kashmir “for no other purpose.” Farasat said that Yechury will travel to Srinagar on 29 August.
Syed and Farasat both filed habeas corpus petitions—a type of writ petition through which the court can direct the state to produce a person under detention. The orders directing the petitioners to visit Kashmir and report back to the court mark a curious and significant deviation from the manner in which the higher judiciary has traditionally dealt with habeas corpus writs.
Among the 13 cases heard by the court, nine petitions challenged the effective nullification of Article 370 and the reorganisation of the state into two union territories, including one by Manohar Lal Sharma, a Delhi-based lawyer. “Article 370 was not a donation to Kashmir, it was a constitutional guarantee that India would comply with the agreement of special status that it gave at the time of accession,” Sharma told me. “Now India has cancelled 370, which means you’ve cancelled that agreement as well. This is the worst thing that Narendra Modi did.”
Shah Faesal, the president of the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement and Shehla Rashid, the party’s general secretary, had filed a petition arguing that the centre’s actions vitiated the principle of federalism and violated the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir. “Our petition goes beyond Jammu & Kashmir,” Rashid told me. “It goes into due process and federalism, because if this can be done to J&K, which had so many safeguards, it can be done to any state. We have also challenged the December 2018 order to implement president's rule in J&K.”
The other petitions were filed by residents of Jammu and Kashmir, including Mohammad Akbar Lone, a National Conference member; Shakir Shabir, a lawyer; Muzzafar Iqbal Khan, a retired judge; and Farooq Dar, a businessman. The Supreme Court referred the petitions challenging the abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and its bifurcation to a constitutional bench, and said that the matters would be heard in October.
Two other petitions challenged the communication blockade. In her petition, Anuradha Bhasin, the executive editor of the Kashmir Times, questioned the curbs on media freedom and asked the court to pass directions that would allow journalists to freely practice their profession. In the second petition, Tehseen Poonawala, a social activist, asked for the curfew to be withdrawn and other “regressive measures” such as the blocking of phone lines, internet and news channels in Kashmir. The Supreme Court issued notice to the centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration in both petitions, asking them to reply within seven days.
“I filed the writ when many Kashmiri lawyers based in Delhi, both [Kashmiri] Pandits and Muslims could not contact their families on account of the clampdown and with Eid coming up and then Raksha Bandhan, wanted to celebrate with their families and friends,” Poonawala said.
“The issue of restrictions and curbs [on communication] requires immediate redressal,” Bhasin told me. “Already three weeks have passed and we hope it is resolved soon when it is taken up next. Truth has become a casualty here.”