[ad_1]
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Amid the Supreme Court’s prodding on a timeline for restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Tuesday said he would make a positive statement on it on Thursday.
The assurance came before the Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. He added that the Union Territory status of J&K is not permanent although Ladakh would remain as Union Territory. The court had said although it was conscious about converting J&K into Union Territory “in lieu of national security”, that status could not be permanent.
“Without putting you in a bind, you (SG) and AG (Advocate General) may seek instructions at the highest level whether there is some timeframe in view. Restoration of democracy is a very important survival component for our nation… We take your point that progress has begun,” the CJI said.
As the hearing on the hugely contentious issue continued for the 12th day, the apex court wanted to know from the government’s law officers was the abrogation of Article 370 “really a logical step” to achieve J-K’s complete integration with India.
Commencing his arguments, Advocate General R Venkataramani said there is no fundamental difference between the integration process of J&K and the constitutional integration process of the rest of the country. The bench questioned the attorney general as to how provision 3 of Article 370 can be given a go-by while abrogating the provision.
Article 370 (3) says, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause ( 2 ) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”
The CJI contended that Article 370 says the recommendation of the constituent assembly shall be “necessary” and “before” the President issues a notification, and so it cannot be a post facto recommendation.
The top court also questioned the Centre about the validity of its decision to divide the erstwhile state into two Union Territories, saying the petitioners who have challenged its decision contended it was beyond the powers of Parliament.
“…on the wide chasm between absolute autonomy as it existed on 26th January 1950 and complete integration brought about on Aug 5, 2019, it was substantially bridged by what was happening in between. So it was not a complete migration from absolute autonomy to absolute integration. Substantial degree of integration had already taken place in the between 1950 and 2019. So what was done in 2019, was it really a logical step forward to achieve that integration?” the bench remarked.
The bench also disagreed with S-G Mehta’s contention and said from the plain reading of Article 370, it appears that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was given overriding powers in respect of the state government, as the matters were to be placed before the CA for approval if concurrence or consultation had been obtained before it came into existence.
Several petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split the erstwhile state into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh – were referred to a Constitution bench in 2019.
(With additional inputs from PTI)
NEW DELHI: Amid the Supreme Court’s prodding on a timeline for restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Tuesday said he would make a positive statement on it on Thursday.
The assurance came before the Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. He added that the Union Territory status of J&K is not permanent although Ladakh would remain as Union Territory. The court had said although it was conscious about converting J&K into Union Territory “in lieu of national security”, that status could not be permanent.
“Without putting you in a bind, you (SG) and AG (Advocate General) may seek instructions at the highest level whether there is some timeframe in view. Restoration of democracy is a very important survival component for our nation… We take your point that progress has begun,” the CJI said.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
As the hearing on the hugely contentious issue continued for the 12th day, the apex court wanted to know from the government’s law officers was the abrogation of Article 370 “really a logical step” to achieve J-K’s complete integration with India.
Commencing his arguments, Advocate General R Venkataramani said there is no fundamental difference between the integration process of J&K and the constitutional integration process of the rest of the country. The bench questioned the attorney general as to how provision 3 of Article 370 can be given a go-by while abrogating the provision.
Article 370 (3) says, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause ( 2 ) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”
The CJI contended that Article 370 says the recommendation of the constituent assembly shall be “necessary” and “before” the President issues a notification, and so it cannot be a post facto recommendation.
The top court also questioned the Centre about the validity of its decision to divide the erstwhile state into two Union Territories, saying the petitioners who have challenged its decision contended it was beyond the powers of Parliament.
“…on the wide chasm between absolute autonomy as it existed on 26th January 1950 and complete integration brought about on Aug 5, 2019, it was substantially bridged by what was happening in between. So it was not a complete migration from absolute autonomy to absolute integration. Substantial degree of integration had already taken place in the between 1950 and 2019. So what was done in 2019, was it really a logical step forward to achieve that integration?” the bench remarked.
The bench also disagreed with S-G Mehta’s contention and said from the plain reading of Article 370, it appears that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was given overriding powers in respect of the state government, as the matters were to be placed before the CA for approval if concurrence or consultation had been obtained before it came into existence.
Several petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split the erstwhile state into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh – were referred to a Constitution bench in 2019.
(With additional inputs from PTI)
[ad_2]
Source link