SC judge recuses from hearing plea challenging Omar Abdullah's detention

NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court judge Justice M M Shantanagoudar on Wednesday recused himself from hearing the plea filed by Sara Abdullah Pilot challenging the detention of her brother and NC leader Omar Abdullah under the J-K Public Safety Act.

As soon as the hearing began on Sara’s s plea before a three-judge bench comprising justices N V Ramana, Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Shantanagoudhar said, “I am not participating in this matter.”

He did not divulge any reason for his recusal.

The bench which slated the hearing for Thursday earlier, shifted it to Friday after senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing Sara is not available for arguments tomorrow.

National Conference (NC) leader has been under detention since August 5, when the Centre government scrapped the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir.

He was initially detained under Section 107 of CrPC, which allows the executive magistrate to detain someone if it is believed that he is likely to commit breach of peace or public tranquility.

Last week, Abdullah’s detention was extended, with charges slapped against him under Section 8 of the PSA. The provision allows a person to be detained to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of the public order.

Pilot’s habeas corpus petition said, “It is rare that those who have served the nation as members of parliament, chief ministers of a State, ministers in the Union, and have always stood by the national aspirations of India, are now perceived as a threat to the State.”

Ministry of Home Affairs dossier against Omar Abdullah under the Public Safety Act alleged that while resorting to his dirty politics, he had adopted a radical methodology by way of instigating and provoking general masses against the policies of the Centre Government.

It said he has posted many provoking and instigating comments/ideas on social networking sites, so as to instigate common people against the decision of the Parliament which had the potential of inciting violence and disturbing public order in the region.

Abdullah was further accused of favouring radical thoughts and planning and projecting his activities against the Union of India while enjoying the support of gullible masses.

The petition called the allegations in the dossier false and ridiculous, pointing out that since Abdullah has been under detention for the past six months, he could not have made any public speech that would cause an apprehension of public order being affected.