Upping the ante on the Centre over continues gag on 4G internet from last about 11 months, former chief minister Omar Abdullah on Thursday said abrogation of special status of J&K was justified saying it would end militancy in the valley and now continued ban on high speed internet is being defended saying violence is increasing.
“So which is it, increasing or ending,” Mr Abdullah, who is vice-president of National Conference (NC), asked.
“How convenient! 5th Aug 2019 was justified saying it would end terrorism/militancy in Kashmir & the continued ban on 4G is justified saying violence in Kashmir is increasing. So which is it, increasing or ending?” Mr Abdullah wrote on micro-blogging site twitter.
Mr Abdullah was reacting to reports that Advocate General KK Venugopa has defended gag on 4G internet in the Supreme Court, saying that incidents of militancy were on the rise in Kashmir.
The SC was hearing a contempt petition filed on 9 June by Foundation for Media Professionals, an NGO, stating that the Centre and J&K government had willfully not complied with the apex court’s order. The SC had directed for the constitution of a committee to examine into the issue of ban on 4G internet in the Valley.
“AG KK Venugopa says no contempt is made out since the committee is already formed & orders of suspension are issued after due application of mind. AG claims incidents of terrorism are on the rise. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, for the contempt applicant, counters this by citing a statement by HM Amit Shah dated May 31. Ahmadi cites Shah’s interview that purportedly said terrorism is on its lowest since 1990, after abrogation of #Article 370. He also refers to an article by Ram Madhav, one of the interlocutors in J&K, suggesting it is time to lift many restrictions,” read a tweet on which Mr Abdullah was reacting.
The SC on Thursday directed the Union government and Jammu and Kashmir administration to file a detailed affidavit in the contempt plea within a week. “If you have complied with the orders given in May, then it is needed to publish that in public domain,” the bench headed by Justice NV Ramana said.26