Sending out a strong message, the Centre on Friday informed the Supreme Court that it can’t hold talks with Kashmiri separatists or with Pakistan in the current violent situation in Kashmir.
Attorney General (AG) Mukul Rohatgi made this submission before a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice JS Khehar and justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul when the CJI suggested suspension of the use of pellet guns in the valley provided there was a reciprocal assurance that there will be no violence and stone throwing from the other side. The bench was hearing a petition from J&K Bar Association against the use of pellet guns on students on the ground that such use of pellets results in innocents being killed and several persons losing their eye sight.
Rejecting the plea for a unilateral ceasefire and resumption of talks with separatist leaders like Syed Shah Geelani, made by J&K High Court Bar Association, Rohatgi told the bench that there can be no talk with Pakistan or the separatists and even the court cannot pass a directive to the government for holding talks with them.
Referring to the submissions made on behalf of the bar association, the AG said, “Counsel is saying that we should hold talks with Syed Geelani and other leaders. What is this going on? What kind of dialogue he is talking about with these separatist leaders? I can’t have a dialogue. If he has to talk, he has to talk under the rules,” the the AG maintained.
The bench immediately asked the AG, “Did we say we will direct you? Did we agree? It was a suggestion within certain parameters.”
The AG drew the court’s attention to the bar association’s reply describing Kashmir’s accession to India as “controversial instrument of accession.” He asked the court, “How can they (bar) say it is a controversial instrument of accession and say the two countries India and Pakistan are killing people in Kashmir? Is he saying we should have dialogue with Pakistan?”
Earlier advocate Abdul Quayum, appearing for the bar association, blamed the security forces for indulging in unbridled violence and sought a direction from the court that Government of India should be asked to hold “unilateral, uninterrupted, unconditional talks with all stakeholders in the state.” However, CJI asked Quayum, “We can direct them to suspend the use of pellet guns for two weeks, but you must assure that violence and stone pelting will stop.” But the advocate refused to give any assurance saying he was only representing the bar.
