The statement "If you have 5,000 people under house arrest and Section 144 throughout the state, there cannot be bandhs" was made by Kapil Sibal, a senior advocate, during the hearing of a petition challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court of India.
Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the assembly of four or more people in an area. It is often imposed in sensitive areas to prevent protests and demonstrations. House arrest is a measure where a person is confined to their home by the authorities.
Sibal's statement was made in the context of the argument that the abrogation of Article 370 had led to a clampdown on dissent in Jammu and Kashmir. He argued that the imposition of Section 144 and the house arrest of 5,000 people made it impossible for people to protest against the abrogation, and therefore, there could be no bandhs.
Sibal's statement was also a way of questioning the relevance of the government's claims that the abrogation of Article 370 had led to peace and normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir. He argued that the imposition of Section 144 and the house arrest of 5,000 people showed that the situation in the state was far from peaceful.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Sibal's argument, but it did note that the facts he mentioned were not "necessary" or "relevant" in adjudicating upon the constitutional reference. This means that the court did not consider the facts mentioned by Sibal to be important in deciding whether the abrogation of Article 370 was constitutional.
However, the court's decision does not mean that the facts mentioned by Sibal are not relevant. They are still relevant to the broader debate about the abrogation of Article 370 and its impact on the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
