Supreme Court has called upon the attention of the Attorney General for India to investigate a decision made by the Jammu and Kashmir Education Department. This decision involved the suspension of a lecturer, who had recently presented arguments concerning Article 370 before the Constitution Bench. The incident has raised concerns about the protection of individuals' rights to express their opinions.

The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, along with the bench, commenced the day's hearing when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal brought up the lecturer's suspension. Sibal highlighted the case of Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, the academic who had taken a brief leave to present arguments but was suspended upon his return. Sibal expressed his discontent with the situation, emphasizing the apparent unfairness of the action taken against the lecturer.

Sibal urged the Attorney General to investigate the matter, a sentiment that was echoed by the Chief Justice. However, Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, interjected with a reminder that media reports might not convey the complete truth of the situation. Sibal promptly countered by pointing out that the suspension order explicitly referred to Bhat's appearance in the case, suggesting a direct link between his arguments and the suspension.

The Solicitor General mentioned that there were additional issues surrounding Bhat's activities in various courts, suggesting that this might not be the sole reason for his suspension. Sibal retorted that if that were the case, the suspension should have taken place earlier and not immediately following his appearance in court. He went on to emphasize that such actions were contrary to democratic principles and fairness.

Amidst the discussion, Chief Justice Chandrachud requested the Attorney General, R Venkataramani, to investigate the matter thoroughly. The Chief Justice and the other justices expressed their concern that the suspension seemed to have occurred in close proximity to Bhat's appearance before the court, hinting at potential retribution for his arguments.

The situation has sparked debates about the freedom of expression and the rights of individuals to engage in legal proceedings without fear of repercussions. Bhat, who appeared as a party-in-person, had expressed his concerns about the impact of Article 370's abrogation on teaching the principles of democracy and the Indian Constitution to students in the region. His case has brought to light the challenges faced by educators in addressing complex questions about democracy and constitutional ideals in the aftermath of significant events.

As the Supreme Court awaits the Attorney General's investigation, questions about the preservation of freedom of expression and the appropriate treatment of individuals who participate in legal proceedings continue to be at the forefront of public discourse. The outcome of this incident could potentially set a precedent for how academic freedom and the right to legal engagement are upheld in democratic societies.