Sitaram Yechury v.​​ Union of India 2019 | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

Brief Facts of Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

• On August 5, following the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, a ban on access to the Internet and communication services was imposed throughout the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
• Several political and non-political leaders, such as Qazi Shibli, Jammu and Kashmir, former Prime Ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, MLA Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami and engineer Rashid were detained in remand.
• As a result of which a virtual lockdown was imposed since the central government passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2019, which lifted the special status granted to the valley state.
• Sitaram Yechury, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India on 19th of August 2019 took to court a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the detention imposed on one among the leaders of his party, Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami.
• The petitioner also stated that Mr. Tarigami, is in poor health and he wishes to go to him personally.

Issues Involved

• Whether the detention imposed on Mr. Tarigami constitutionally valid?
• Whether the petitioner would be allowed to go to Jammu & Kashmir to meet Mr. Tarigami?

Contentions of Petitioner in Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

• The petitioner argued that despite his best efforts, he was unable to investigate Dr. Tarigami’s well-being and his attempt to meet him personally in Kashmir had also failed, as he was denied entry to the state. 
• Furthermore, he stated that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami was ill and, through the habeas corpus application, the petitioner requested the court to transfer Md. Tarigami to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (A.I.I.M.S.) Delhi, for better medical treatment.

Contentions of Respondent in Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

• The respondents rejected the petitioner’s requests and argued that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami’s health was in good health and under the surveillance of a security Z, for which the petitioner was denied personal physical communication.

Judgement in Sitaram Yechury vs. Union of India

• The Supreme Court held the fact that Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami was under watch the Z-security doesn’t have anything to do with his wellbeing. The court further held that the thinking of the Respondent was not appropriate for restricting the petitioner’s visit.
• The court granted the petitioner permission to travel to Jammu and Kashmir to meet with Mr. Tarigami, in order to learn about his position and well-being, the current state of his health and whether he needs specialized medical treatment in accordance with medical advice. 
• The court also warned the petitioner Sitaram Yechury that if it was determined that he was involved in any other act, omission or commission, except as indicated above by him and that it is to meet with his friend and colleague to inquire about his state of health and well-being. , will be construed as a violation of the order of the Court. 
• The court further asked the petitioner to file a report when he comes back to Delhi supported by an affidavit in connection with the purpose of the visit as indicated in this order.
• The court on September 5, 2019 ordered that Mr. Tarigami be transferred to AIIMS, New Delhi, and allowed a family member of his choice to accompany him.
• Tarigami’s discharge report issued by AIIMS; New Delhi was submitted to the court. On September 16, 2019, the court ordered that Mr. Tarigami was free to return to Srinagar when he deemed it appropriate to undertake the journey. Furthermore, in the same order, the Court ruled that the written request remains open to rule on the alleged detention without legal authority.