Supreme Court asks J&K administration to respond to 'each and every question' raised on restrictions imposed in Kashmir post-abrogation of Article 370

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Jammu and Kashmir administration that it will have to respond to each and every question raised on the restrictions imposed in the erstwhile state after the abrogation of Article 370. A bench headed by Justice NV Ramana told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the administration, that petitioners challenging the restrictions have argued in detail and he will have to answer all questions. “Mr Mehta you have to answer each and every question raised by the petitioners who have argued in detail. Your counter affidavit does not help us to come to any conclusion. Don’t give the impression that you are not giving enough attention to the case,” said the bench, comprising Justices R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai. [caption id=“attachment_7627401” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Supreme Court. PTI[/caption] Mehta said most of the averments made by the petitioners on restrictions are “incorrect” and he will respond to each and every aspect when he argues in court. The solicitor general said he has a status report with him but he has not filed it in the court as the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is changing every single day and would like to show to the court the exact status at the time of his submission. At the outset, the top court clarified that except for one petition it does not have any detention matters pending before it. “We are not hearing any detention matters with regard to Jammu and Kashmir. We are currently hearing two petitions filed by Anuradha Bhasin and Ghulam Nabi Azad which are on restrictions in freedom of movement, press, etc,” it said, adding that only one habeas corpus petition is pending. It said only one habeas corpus (against detention of a business man) is pending because the petitioner had simultaneously moved before the JK High Court and the Supreme Court. “Now they have withdrawn from the high court and hence the petition is pending here,” the bench said.