​SITARAM YECHURY V. UNION OF INDIA, WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 229 OF 2019​:

DATE: 28/08/2019

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S.A. Bobde

FACTS:

​Following the revocation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, the Union Government imposed extensive restrictions in the region, including a communication blackout, curfews, and movement limitations. Numerous political leaders and activists were detained or placed under preventive custody, among them Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, a four-time elected Member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and senior member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]. Concerned about Tarigami's health and whereabouts, Sitaram Yechury, the General Secretary of CPI(M), filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, seeking permission to travel to Srinagar to meet his detained colleague and assess his health condition. ​

Yechury argued that the continued incommunicado detention of Tarigami violated his fundamental rights, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21. He also expressed concerns that the sweeping restrictions in the region curtailed citizens' access to justice and other fundamental freedoms. The Union of India opposed the petition, citing potential law and order disruptions due to the prevailing security situation. The Supreme Court, adopting a cautious approach, allowed Yechury to travel to Srinagar solely to meet Tarigami and report back to the Court, explicitly prohibiting any political activities during the visit.

ISSUES:

The key issue in was whether the preventive detention of Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami and the broader restrictions in Jammu & Kashmir violated fundamental rights, particularly under Article 21, and whether Yechury could be permitted to visit Tarigami without engaging in political activity.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed Sitaram Yechury to visit the detained Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami in Jammu & Kashmir, strictly for personal reasons and not for any political activity. The Court directed Yechury to file a report upon his return and clarified that the visit was permitted as a one-time exception due to humanitarian concerns. The Court refrained from making any broader ruling on the legality of the detentions or the constitutional changes in Jammu & Kashmir at that stage.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the serious concerns raised regarding the deprivation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution due to the restrictions and detentions imposed in Jammu & Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370. However, the Court adopted a cautious and balanced approach, stating that while fundamental rights must be protected, national security and public order were also significant considerations. Given the sensitive situation in the region, the Court did not issue a sweeping judgment but chose to address the matter on a case-specific basis, thereby avoiding interference in broader political and administrative decisions.

Specifically, the Court found that the petition filed by Sitaram Yechury seeking to visit his colleague, Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, had merit on humanitarian grounds. Recognizing that the visit was for a personal and non-political purpose, the Court permitted Yechury’s travel to Jammu & Kashmir under strict conditions — namely, that he would not engage in any political activity or give media statements and that he would report back to the Court. This conditional permission reflected the Court’s intent to safeguard individual rights while respecting the government’s concerns about maintaining public order during a sensitive time.

ANALYSIS:

The case of Sitaram Yechury v. Union of India presents a significant judicial moment in the context of balancing civil liberties with national security concerns following the abrogation of Article 370. The Supreme Court was faced with a petition challenging the alleged illegal detention of Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami under preventive custody, as well as restrictions that allegedly violated fundamental rights under Article 21. By permitting Sitaram Yechury’s visit to his colleague solely on humanitarian grounds and under stringent non-political conditions, the Court demonstrated its careful, case-by-case approach. It highlighted the need to protect individual liberties even during heightened security situations, without overstepping into executive policy matters or passing a blanket judgment on the broader constitutional and political changes in Jammu & Kashmir.

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal freedoms while respecting the domain of the executive, especially in regions undergoing sensitive transitions. The Court’s insistence that Yechury’s visit be non-political and its directive to report back illustrated judicial restraint and accountability. It refrained from making any broad declarations about the legality of the restrictions or detentions, thereby maintaining institutional balance. At the same time, it signaled that human rights and the right to seek judicial redress could not be suspended indefinitely, even in tense circumstances. This case thus serves as an example of the Court cautiously upholding constitutional values without directly challenging the government's administrative decisions during a national security scenario.