The Supreme Court of India on Thursday asked senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad if the authorities should have "waited for riots to take place" for imposing restrictions following the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

During the hearing on the matter, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Azad, had contended that it was a "colourable exercise of power" on the part of the authorities to press restrictions on the people of Kashmir, including on transportation and communication. To this,a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana and comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai said: “In an issue like this, why cannot apprehension be there that the entire area or the place may be disturbed?"

Sibal had argued before the bench that the authorities cannot impose restrictions in the absence of materials which back their concern regarding danger to public tran quillity. "In the 10 districts of the Valley, was it necessary to paralyse seven million people like this? They have to show the materials," mentioned Sibal. He further said: “Here, we are not talking about rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir. We are talking about the rights of people of India."

The bench, however, asked, "Should they have waited for riots to take place?"To this, Sibal said, "How can they assume that riots will take place? It shows there is an assumption in their minds and there are no materials. They can have intelligence input to say so."He added that if such a situation emerges, the authorities may impose Section 144 of the Cr PC. Referring to restrictions imposed on modes of communication, Sibal said:“What is happening in Jammu and Kashmir, people of India are entitled to know.”"This is a complete misuse of Section 144 of Cr PC. It is a colourable exercise of power. It is constitutionally impermissible," Sibal said, adding,"You cannot say that everyone living in a district may disturb the peace."The advocate further said that it can take place in an extraordinary situation, but the authorities must have materials to support their apprehensions.

He further noted that that the order imposing restrictions was passed on August 4, i.e. a day before the abrogation of provisions of Article 370."Why you have assumed that the entire population will be against this and on what basis?" he said.

To this, the bench told Sibal, "If that is so, then there cannot be any section 144 at any place."

Contending that Jammu and Kashmir suffered an economic loss of Rs 10,000 crore because of the restrictions in place, Sibal said the State should have bolstered steps to secure the fundamental rights of the citizens. Azad had moved the SC after he was not permitted to visit Jammu and Kashmir after Article 370 abrogation.

The Congress leader had, in his plea, sought a nod from the apex court to pay a visit to his family and relatives. He had also sought permission to analyse the impact of the situation prevailing after Article 370 revocation on the life of daily wagers. The SC had on September 16 permitted him to visit four J&K districts. The arguments will continue on November 14.