While asking the counsel who sought to draw an analogy between Kashmir and Hong Kong on Thursday, the Supreme Court said, “Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?”

Recently, the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, proposed a ban on the face masks during the protests, in the backdrop of increasing demonstrations. The Hong Kong court ruled against the law to ban face masks terming it unconstitutional.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing an intervenor in a matter cited the Hong Kong court’s recent decision before a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana.

She sought to draw an analogy between the restrictions imposed on people in Kashmir and Hongkong. She told the bench that in the Hong Kong judgment, the test of proportionality was applied. “The situation in Hong Kong is actually worse. The citizens conducted peaceful protests, the proportionality test was applied. Citing this, I am just drawing an analogy.”

Justice BR Gavai, who was also on the bench said, “Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?” Justice Gavai also said that the Supreme Court has delivered an order upholding the rights of the citizens, “Why bank on Hong Kong judgment?”

Justice Ramana said that the apex court has a long tradition of upholding the rights of the citizens.

Arora said a large Army deployment in Jammu and Kashmir leads to the creation of an inert citizen, which is not in the interest of democracy, as this citizen behaves with fear on his mind. “For people to speak out, they should be fearless”, she insisted while referring to psychological and physical restraints.

“It was the people of Jammu and Kashmir who were worst affected by abrogation of Article 370. They should have been allowed to air their views”, she told the court.

The Hong Kong High Court had recently ruled that a ban on wearing face masks during public demonstrations was unconstitutional.

While asking the counsel who sought to draw an analogy between Kashmir and Hong Kong on Thursday, the Supreme Court said, “Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?”

Recently, the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, proposed a ban on the face masks during the protests, in the backdrop of increasing demonstrations . The Hong Kong court ruled against the law to ban face masks terming it unconstitutional.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing an intervenor in a matter cited the Hong Kong court’s recent decision before a bench headed by Justice NV Ramana.

She sought to draw an analogy between the restrictions imposed on people in Kashmir and Hongkong. She told the bench that in the Hong Kong judgment, the test of proportionality was applied. “The situation in Hong Kong is actually worse. The citizens conducted peaceful protests, proportionality test was applied. Citing this, I am just drawing an analogy.”

Justice BR Gavai, who was also on the bench said, “Is there cross border terrorism in Hong Kong?” Justice Gavai also said that the Supreme Court has delivered an order upholding the rights of the citizens, “Why bank on Hong Kong judgment?”

Justice Ramana said that the apex court has a long tradition of upholding rights of the citizens.

Arora said a large Army deployment in Jammu and Kashmir leads to the creation of an inert citizen, which is not in the interest of democracy, as this citizen behaves with a fear on his mind. “For people to speak out, they should be fearless”, she insisted while referring to psychological and physical restraints.

“It was the people of Jammu and Kashmir who were worst affected by abrogation of Article 370. They should have been allowed to air their views”, she told the court.

The Hong Kong High Court had recently ruled that a ban on wearing face masks during public demonstrations was unconstitutional.

(With inputs from IANS)