The Supreme Court on Monday sought Centre’s response on a PIL seeking direction from the government to immediately restore high-speed internet services and fixed landline phone services across all hospitals and medical establishments in Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued a notice to the Centre and tagged the matter along with other related pleas in connection with the Kashmir issue.
On September 11, an advocate named Satya Mitra had filed the plea on behalf of doctor Sameer Kaul and one Salim Jahangeer Kirmani.
The petition also sought direction to the central government to desist and refrain in future from blocking or suspending internet and fixed landline phone services in hospitals and medical establishments, along with mobile phone services of doctors and other staff members working in hospitals and medical establishments in Jammu and Kashmir.
The apex court sent to constitution bench a plea filed by Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin seeking the removal of communication blockade in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of provisions under Article 370 and free movement of journalists in the region.
On August 13, Bhasin had moved the plea, claiming Kashmir Times was not published owing to the curbs on communication services and movement. She had alleged that a bar was put on journalists’ rights provided under the different provisions of the Constitution.
The apex court also sent to constitution bench a PIL filed by child rights expert Enakshi Ganguly and Professor Shanta Sinha, alleging illegal detention of children in Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of abrogation of Article 370.
The court will commence hearing on the pleas relating to Article 370 from Tuesday.
On August 5, the Centre had abrogated Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution and the Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act, 2019, bifurcating the former state into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir with legislature and Ladakh without one.
Following this, a batch of petitions was filed in the top court challenging the move.