The Supreme Court on Monday asked the attorney-general of India to look into an allegation that a political science lecturer in Kashmir had been suspended because he argued in the Supreme Court against the Article 370 dilution that stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status.

The lecturer, Zaroor Ahmad Bhat, had told the top court that “it is very difficult for me to teach since 2019 about this beautiful Constitution. When students ask if we are a democracy after 2019, it is difficult to answer”.

In 2019, the special status was revoked, the state was bifurcated and made into two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

In the apex court on Monday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the suspension of the lecturer, Zaroor Ahmad Bhat. “The academic who came here and argued for a few minutes has been suspended as a professor from the university in Kashmir, because he argued and because of what he argued. He was suspended from the faculty on August 25. He took leave for two days, went back and was suspended,” Sibal told the court.

Sibal was supported by senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan.

The bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the dilution of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud told attorney-general R. Venkataramani, the country’s highest law officer: “Mr Attorney-General, just see what has happened. Someone who appears in this court is suspended now. Have a look into it and talk to the lieutenant governor.”

Venkataramani assured the bench that he would look into the issue.

Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta immediately rose to say that he had gone through various reports and that the allegation may not be entirely true.

“I have checked, My Lords, after reading various newspaper reports. What has been reported in the newspapers may not be the correct facts or the whole truth. There are other issues. He appears in various courts and there are other issues. We can place the details before the court,” Mehta told the bench that included Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.

Sibal said: “Then, he should have been suspended earlier. Why now? I have the suspension order of Bhat. It says he had argued before this court and therefore the suspension. This is not fair. This is not how democracy should function.”

The CJI said: “If there is something else, then it is different. But why in such close succession of him appearing and then getting suspended?”

The second senior-most judge, Justice Kaul, observed: “Mr Solicitor-General, the close proximity between the arguments and the order….”

Mehta agreed that “the timing is definitely improper. I bow down. It cannot be done as a retribution.”

Justice B.R. Gavai observed: “Mr Solicitor-General, the close proximity between the arguments. If it has happened due to appearance here, then it is indeed retribution. What happens then to freedom?”

Bhat, a political science lecturer with the Government Higher Secondary School, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, had hardly argued for over five minutes before the bench on August 23.

During his arguments, Bhat had told the five-judge bench that he teaches Indian politics and political science in Jammu and Kashmir.

“It is very difficult for me to teach since 2019 about this beautiful Constitution. When students ask if we are a democracy after 2019, it is difficult to answer. Despite the assurance made by the then governor, Satya Pal Malik, on August 4 that Article 370 would not be abrogated, curfew was imposed at midnight and former chief ministers were detained,” Bhat had told the bench.

On August 25, Bhat was suspended. The suspension order said: “Pending enquiry into his conduct, Mr Zaroor Ahmad Bhat, senior lecturer, Political Science, presently posted at Government Higher Secondary school, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect for violation of provisions of J&K CSR, Jammu and Kashmir Government Employees Conduct (Rules 1971).”

The order said school education joint director Subah Mehta “shall conduct an in-depth inquiry into the conduct of the delinquent officer”.