Talks only with legally recognised stakeholders in J&K:SC told

The government today ruled out talks with separatist elements or those raising the issues of "accession or Azadi" in the Kashmir Valley, telling the Supreme Court that a dialogue to restore normalcy was possible only with the legally recognised stakeholders.
The apex court also was in agreement with the view of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and said "all those whom the law does not prevent, can meet and come out with suggestions, as the situation is not very palpable".
The court's observation came as Rohatgi said "the government would come to the negotiation table only if the legally recognised stakeholders participate in the dialogue and not with the separatist elements who rake up the issue of accession or Azadi in Kashmir."

The top court asked the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, Srinagar, to come up with suggestions to resolve the crisis, including the stone-pelting and violent street protests in the Kashmir Valley.
It told the bar, which has sought ban on use of pellet guns to quell the agitating mob, to take "first steps" of bringing all stakeholders on the table for workable suggestions to overcome the crisis.
The apex court also took exception to the stand of the bar that it cannot vouch for all stakeholders and could only speak on behalf of lawyers by telling it that "you cannot take such a stand when you have come here".

A bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar made it clear that the next step would come only if the bar comes out with workable suggestions and posted the matter for further hearing on May 9.

While the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, was persuading the lawyer's body to ensure that there should not be any street agitation and stone pelting, the attorney general objected to the stand taken by the bar for involving the separatist elements in the talks.
Rohatgi read out the part of the affidavit in which the bar association has raised questions about accession of Kashmir and giving a political colour to the matter by mentioning names of some separatist leaders who were under house arrest.

"The case of the bar here is different but he (lawyers for bar) talks about Geelani and separatists. What is this going on? Ten times he says release them...," the attorney general said as the bench interrupted him and clarified it has not accepted or entertained such arguments for pre-conditions for dialogue.
"Did we agree", the bench once again told the top law officer when he repeated the submission made by the bar body.
"We can't give any commitment about the talks. It's just a proxy war. At one hand he says he does not vouch for all others and on the other hand he wants withdrawal of security forces and goes to the extent of saying that all elections (in the state) are rigged. They say we catch and kill people. We are not attacking our people. You say I (bar body) am an interlocutor but also say you cannot vouch for everyone," Rohatgi said.

The attorney general said the process of a dialogue would take place only in accordance with the rules and "if the rules allow, then the separatists can be released and if not, they won't be".
He also made it clear that politics cannot be allowed as the talks to bring normalcy in the Valley was going on at the highest level between Prime Minister and J&K Chief Minister.
"The Chief Minister is with the Prime Minister, what further dialogue is required? The Prime Minister has invited the Chief Minister. She (Mehbooba Mufti) is their CM," he said.
While Rohatgi was taking a hard stand, the bench interrupted him and said it was only trying to facilitate the dialogue process and if there were any reservations on this endeavour, it can stop the matter.

"If you feel the court has no role and if you feel we have no jurisdiction, we will close the file at this moment," the bench said, adding that both the parties would have to take a joint step.
However, it clarified that the first step has to come from the lawyer's association.
The lawyer's body, which blamed the Centre for the trouble including students coming out on the streets and pelting stones at the police, was asked by the bench to give an undertaking that it will persuade them to keep away from such violent agitations.
However, the bar expressed reluctance saying it cannot vouch for everybody in the Valley.

The submissions did not go down well with the bench, which said "it was not acceptable that you come here and say that there are several other stakeholders".
"You make an undertaking that there will be no agitations for two weeks then we will direct them (Centre) to keep away the security forces from using pellet guns.
"But first positive foot forward has to come from you. This is the last opportunity and you have to play an important role. You will have to come forward. If you take a first step, you will be remembered forever in history," the bench told the counsel appearing for the bar association.

The association was insisting that there should be a "unilateral declaration of cease-fire", withdrawal of security forces, revocation of AFSPA and stoppage of using pellet guns.
It also blamed the goverments after Atal Bihari Vajpayee of not taking forward the initiatives undertaken by him to resolve the contentious issue plaguing the state.
To this, the bench said "what kind of talk will happen if you keep agitating and there are stone-pelting incidents. You should first stop these agitations and then talk. If you keep throwing stones, then what kind of talk will happen," the court told the counsel for lawyer's body.

The counsel said "they (Centre) don't want talks. They are sending additional security forces. They have sent 5000 pellet guns. They just want to kill people".
To this, the bench said there shall be suggestions and dialogue as even if suggestions are rejected, the dialogue should go on.
"If your suggestions are within the contours of the Constitution, we assure that the dialogue will go on," the bench said.
The apex court was hearing hearing an appeal filed by Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association against the High Court order seeking stay on the use of pellet guns as a large number of people had been killed or injured due to their use.

During the last hearing on April 10, the Centre had told the Supreme Court it was exploring a crowd control option that is akin to rubber bullets but not as lethal as pellet guns which were being used as a last resort to quell the violence.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court had on September 22 rejected the plea seeking a ban on use of pellet guns on the ground that the Centre had already constituted a Committee of Experts through its memorandum of July 26, 2016 for exploring alternatives to pellet guns.