Detained J&K politician Shah Faesal has filed a rejoinder before the Delhi High Court today in order to reply to the aversions made by the Jammu & Kashmir government in his habeas corpus petition.
He had mentioned in his petition that he was traveling to the Harvard University to complete the last semester of his education when he was made to de-board the plane and then subsequently detained by the police.
In its reply J&K government had challenged the jurisdiction of the present court.
The Petitioner countered that claim by submitting that he was arrested in Delhi and was then forcibly moved to Srinagar; he himself did not desire to be transferred to the valley.
A bench of Justices Manmohan and Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal listed the matter for further hearing on September 12 as the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was not available for advancing arguments in the matter.
On the issue of Look Out Notice (LOC) which was purported to be issued by Intelligence Bureau prior to the arrest of the Petitioner, it is submitted that the same was not presented to the Petitioner before filing of the reply by the state government. Moreover, the content of the LOC is not mentioned in the reply; neither are the grounds properly explained. The choice of issuing an LOC is also questioned as it is issued for implicated criminals who are expected to flee the country. However, Mr Faesal has always been a law abiding and respectful citizen of the country.
The rejoinder also gives the following reasons to prove the illegality of the entire activity of arresting the Petitioner:
1. He was traveling to Harvard Kennedy School to finish his degree in Public Administration with a valid passport and a valid visa to enter the USA. However, the reply doesn't mention any reason for IB to make the arrest at the Delhi airport. Even the impugned incident of making inciting speech happened in Srinagar. There was no ground to make an arrest in New Delhi.
2. The order of the Executive Magistrate under section 107 was passed ex post facto in order to legitimate the detention. Moreover, the fact about the Petitioner addressing a 'large gathering' is implausibly as there was high security at the airport and there was no possibility of any gathering being mobilised.
The Petitioner also submitted the following grounds on which the Petitioner should be released immediately:
1. The Petitioner was forcibly, and against his will, taken to Srinagar after his arrest in New Delhi and that too in the absence of any reasonable ground
2. Petitioner was not presented before a Magistrate at the Srinagar airport
3. The Petitioner had a valid visa issued and recognised by the relevant authorities for the purpose of his travel
The court will now hear the arguments on merits on September 12.