‘CID shouldn’t be used as weapon’: Omar says police verification in J-K will need to follow procedure

The remarks come months after as he pitched for relaxation of police verification during recruitment to government jobs in the union territory. “The CID has got a copy of the high court order and they will be asked to follow it in the cases of verifications as there is no way out,” the CM said.

The CM also promised journalists they would not be punished for “speaking the truth”.

“We want them to make the government accountable and highlight our shortcomings. We want the people to know where we lacked”, he said, although he added that the government “will not tolerate circulation of fake news”.

He also promised a transparent policy for government advertisements in the media, saying there would be “no pick and choose in the matter”.

“However, the newspapers who depend only on government advertisement only work to please the administration by publishing government press releases and photographs on the front page. They are not newspapers, but government press notes,” he said.

Police verifications in Jammu and Kashmir – whether for passport or jobs –has been a topic of debate. In 2021, the Jammu and Kashmir government had amended rules regarding verification of “character and antecedents” of new government appointees.

The rules made it mandatory for such appointees to provide, among other information, educational details from age 15, details of their family, mobile numbers used during the last five years, registration numbers of the vehicles they own or use, their email and social media or web-based portal accounts and their bank and post office numbers. Political parties cutting across party lines have been critical of the process.

Significantly, the CID, as a wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police, comes under UT’s Home Department, which comes under the control of the Lt Governor after the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the then state of Jammu and Kashmir into two UTs.

In a significant ruling in February, the court cited Article 21 of the Constitution to hold that the conduct of the applicant — and not his relatives — should form the basis for accepting or rejecting a passport application. Politicians cutting across party lines had then welcomed the order, who have called it harassment.