Srinagar, February 5: In a significant relief for a 72-year-old
Kashmiri man facing deportation, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High
Court has stayed the government’s attempt to expel Mohammad Rustum Mir
from India. The order, passed by Justice M.A. Chowdhary on December 13
in Mohammad Rustum Mir v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors., ensures
that Mir cannot be forced to leave until further notice.
“Subject to objections from the other side and till the next date of
hearing before the Bench, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not
be deported until further orders,” the Court stated, setting the next
hearing for February 25.
Mir, a native of Kashmir, had legally traveled to Pakistan in 1986 via
the Wagah border to visit his sister and brother-in-law, who had
migrated in 1965. However, during his stay, he lost his passport and
travel documents, leaving him stranded. Determined to return, he
secured a fresh Pakistani visa and managed to make his way back to
Kashmir.
Despite his valid travel history, Mir allegedly faced persistent
harassment from authorities upon his return. In response, he filed a
writ petition in 1988, which resulted in a court order on June 9,
1988, explicitly barring the government from forcing him out of the
country.
For decades, Mir lived peacefully in his native village, raising a
family of five children, all of whom are currently pursuing their
education. However, despite the earlier court ruling, authorities
recently renewed efforts to deport him, throwing his family into
distress.
Mir’s legal counsel argued that removing him at this stage would not
only violate the 1988 court directive but also disrupt his children’s
education and inflict undue hardship on an elderly man who has spent
the majority of his life in Kashmir.
Recognizing these concerns, the Court intervened, granting Mir
temporary relief by restraining the authorities from proceeding with
the deportation. Advocate Saleem Gul represented Mir, while Advocate
Furqan Sofi appeared for the state.
With the next hearing set for February 25, the ruling offers the
elderly petitioner a crucial reprieve as he fights to remain in the
place he has called home for decades.
Recent Comments