SUPREME COURT REJECTS SHABIR AHMED SHAH’S REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF HIS PREVIOUS DETENTION ORDERS:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined a plea filed by Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah seeking directions for the supply of detention orders issued against him over the years. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, observed that Shah could approach the Jammu and Kashmir government directly to obtain copies of such orders, rather than seeking relief from the apex court during bail proceedings.

The matter came up in connection with Shah’s bail plea in a terror funding case. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared on Shah’s behalf, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The case was adjourned after the Solicitor General sought additional time to respond to new facts introduced in Shah’s rejoinder, which had not been raised before the High Court.

During the hearing, Gonsalves argued that neither Shah nor his family had ever been provided with copies of the numerous detention orders issued against him since 1970, nor with any corresponding court orders related to those detentions. He requested that copies of all such orders, reportedly 69 in total to be supplied to his client. The Solicitor General objected to the plea, contending that Shah had been detained multiple times by successive governments due to his alleged association with Pakistan and related activities. Mehta pointed out that such orders, dating back over five decades, were not in the possession of the NIA and that it would be impractical for the agency to produce documents from “55 years back.”

In response, Gonsalves maintained that a series of detention orders existed and emphasized the need for their disclosure. The bench, however, questioned whether Shah had ever made a formal request to the government for those records. Justice Nath observed that it would be more appropriate for Shah to first seek the documents from the authorities directly, rather than asking for them within the scope of bail proceedings. Justice Mehta also noted that if the request had indeed been raised before the High Court, the same process should have been followed with the relevant state authorities.

When Gonsalves clarified that he was now limiting his request to detention orders issued over the past ten years, he explained that these documents were crucial because there was a factual dispute regarding Shah’s detention history. According to him, while Shah had been detained cumulatively for nearly 39 years, the NIA had claimed during earlier hearings that he was in detention for only 81 days. He reiterated that whatever relevant documents were available should be made accessible to the defense. The Solicitor General, however, maintained that the NIA was not the appropriate authority to furnish such orders, as it had not issued any of them. When the bench pointed out that the state government would be the proper party in such a request, Gonsalves offered to implead it in the matter. The court, however, declined the offer, observing that doing so would unnecessarily expand the scope of the bail proceedings.

In a previous hearing, the Solicitor General had also raised objections to Shah’s use of the expression “Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir” in his submissions, arguing that such terminology was inappropriate and reminiscent of his separatist rhetoric from the 1990s. The court took note of the objection but limited the day’s proceedings to the issue of Shah’s plea for disclosure of detention orders, ultimately refusing to grant the request.