The Supreme Court questioned the Centre whether there is a timetable for restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood.
The Supreme Court, hearing petitions challenging the repeal of Article 370, asked the Centre on Tuesday if there is a timetable for restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, as well as a strategy for this process.
The Centre’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, informed the court that Jammu and Kashmir’s current position as a union territory is transitory and that he will be able to give a positive declaration on the timetable on August 31 following a meeting at the highest level. Ladakh, on the other hand, will remain a union territory, he noted.
Several petitions were referred to a Constitution bench in 2019 contesting the repeal of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which divided the former state into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
On Monday, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that Jammu and Kashmir’s existing position as a union territory was not permanent and that its statehood will be restored.”It is necessary that it remain a Union Territory for a period of time.” The House has been informed by the Hon’ble Home Minister that this is a temporary measure. “J&K will become a state eventually,” Mehta told a five-judge Constitution panel chaired by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
The Supreme Court first agreed with the Centre’s stance on petitions seeking the repeal of Article 370 that the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution is “subordinate” to the Indian Constitution, which is on a higher pedestal.
The bench, however, did not appear to concur with the contention that the erstwhile state’s Constituent body, which was abolished in 1957, was in fact a legislative body.
Without identifying the state’s two main political parties, the Centre stated that residents were misled into believing that the unique laws for Jammu and Kashmir were “not discrimination but a privilege.”
“Even today, two political parties are prior to this court defending Article 370 and 35A,” the attorney general told the Supreme Court on the 11th day of hearing the litany of petitions opposing the repeal of the constitutional clause that granted the former state unique status.
According to Mehta, there is ample evidence to prove that the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution is subservient to the Indian Constitution and that the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was in fact a legislative assembly creating laws.
“At one level, you may be correct subject to rejoinder arguments from the other side (petitioners’ side) the fact that the Constitution of India is a document that stands on a higher platform than the Constitution of J&K,” the bench, which also included justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, said.
It told Mehta that accepting the second limb of the argument that the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly (CA) was, in fact, a legislative assembly would be difficult because a proviso to Article 370 specifically stated that it (CA) brought certain subjects into the hands of the state upon its approval would be difficult.
“On November 21, 2018, the state legislative assembly was dissolved, but there was no concurrent challenge by any political party, citizen, or leader.”
Read More: Happy Onam 2023: Best wishes, messages, images, and greetings to share with friends and family
“Till today, there is no challenge to the dissolve the assembly,” Mehta said, adding that despite the lack of a challenge, the petitioners’ side argued that the decision was “arbitrary.”
Mehta stated that the Governor’s rule was established in the state on June 20, 2018, under Section 92 of the J-K Constitution, due to the failure of the state’s constitutional machinery, and just one petition contested it after 14 months.
