NEW DELHI: Questioning the timing of suspension of J&K lecturer Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, CJI DY Chandrachud wondered if someone “can be suspended just because he appears against the government in the SC”?
The bench, also comprising Justices SK Kaul, S Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, immediately checked with the attorney general, who promised to look into the matter. The CJI told AG R Venkataramani to speak with the J&K lieutenant governor on this issue and sort it out. Justice Chandrachud said, “Please talk to the LG. If there is something apart from this (his appearance in court), then it is different. But why is the suspension in such close proximity to his appearance before the SC?”
Mehta conceded that “the timing (of suspension) is not proper”, a clear indication that Bhat’s suspension might be kept in abeyance by the J&K administration.
However, he maintained that Bhat, despite being a government employee, has been regularly challenging the government’s decisions in different courts. “I have checked (with the UT administration) after the news was published. What is reported in the newspapers may not be the whole truth. He (Bhat) appears in various courts and challenges the government’s policy decisions even while in government service.”
Sibal said, “Then he should have been suspended earlier, why after arguing in the SC. He gave written submission in SC much before the day he argued personally before the court.”
When the SG attempted to assure the court that it was not a retributive step and that there was something more to it, Justice Gavai said, “The close proximity between the arguments (by Bhat) and suspension orders… What happened to the claim of so much freedom (now in J&K)?” Justice Kaul said, “I have not seen the letter of suspension. But if there is reference in it to his appearance before the SC, then it is problematic.”
The bench, also comprising Justices SK Kaul, S Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, immediately checked with the attorney general, who promised to look into the matter. The CJI told AG R Venkataramani to speak with the J&K lieutenant governor on this issue and sort it out. Justice Chandrachud said, “Please talk to the LG. If there is something apart from this (his appearance in court), then it is different. But why is the suspension in such close proximity to his appearance before the SC?”
Mehta conceded that “the timing (of suspension) is not proper”, a clear indication that Bhat’s suspension might be kept in abeyance by the J&K administration.
However, he maintained that Bhat, despite being a government employee, has been regularly challenging the government’s decisions in different courts. “I have checked (with the UT administration) after the news was published. What is reported in the newspapers may not be the whole truth. He (Bhat) appears in various courts and challenges the government’s policy decisions even while in government service.”
Sibal said, “Then he should have been suspended earlier, why after arguing in the SC. He gave written submission in SC much before the day he argued personally before the court.”
When the SG attempted to assure the court that it was not a retributive step and that there was something more to it, Justice Gavai said, “The close proximity between the arguments (by Bhat) and suspension orders… What happened to the claim of so much freedom (now in J&K)?” Justice Kaul said, “I have not seen the letter of suspension. But if there is reference in it to his appearance before the SC, then it is problematic.”