Cannot ignore Pahalgam: SC on J&K statehood pleas (Ld)
Advertisement
New Delhi, Aug 14 : The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed caution over an early hearing on a clutch of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&K) statehood.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran pointed to the “ground realities” and the recent Pahalgam terror attack as it acceded to the Centre’s request to list the matter after eight weeks.
“You will also have to take into consideration the ground realities. You cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,” the CJI Gavai-led Bench told the applicants seeking an earlier hearing.
The apex court was hearing applications arguing that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism".
The applications contended that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
“It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,” submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the “peculiar position” in J&K and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the “correct stage” to consider the matter.
“These applications are not maintainable. We had assured two things: The election would be held, and thereafter, statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,” said SG Mehta.
“I don’t know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,” Mehta added.
After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench sought the Union government’s stand on the matter and posted it for hearing after eight weeks.
In the 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on the Centre’s behalf that statehood would be restored to J&K.
In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in J&K.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran pointed to the “ground realities” and the recent Pahalgam terror attack as it acceded to the Centre’s request to list the matter after eight weeks.
“You will also have to take into consideration the ground realities. You cannot ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,” the CJI Gavai-led Bench told the applicants seeking an earlier hearing.
The apex court was hearing applications arguing that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism".
The applications contended that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
“It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,” submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the “peculiar position” in J&K and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the “correct stage” to consider the matter.
“These applications are not maintainable. We had assured two things: The election would be held, and thereafter, statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,” said SG Mehta.
“I don’t know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,” Mehta added.
After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench sought the Union government’s stand on the matter and posted it for hearing after eight weeks.
In the 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on the Centre’s behalf that statehood would be restored to J&K.
In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in J&K.
Advertisement