During Article 370 Hearing, SC Seeks Information From Centre On Timeline For Restoring Jammu And Kashmir’s Statehood

In response to petitions challenging the repeal of Article 370, the Supreme Court on Tuesday requested information from the Centre regarding a timeline and a step-by-step plan for restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. The Centre’s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, informed the court that Jammu and Kashmir’s existing position as a union territory is only transitory and that he will be able to provide more specific information on the timeline on August 31 following a meeting at the highest level. But Ladakh would continue to be a union territory, he said.

Jammu And Kashmir’s Statehood to be restored

A Constitution bench received several petitions in 2019 that contested the repeal of Article 370’s provisions and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which divided the former state into Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, two union territories. The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Monday that Jammu and Kashmir’s current status as a union territory was temporary and that its statehood would be restored. .“It’s necessary that for some time it remains under the union as a Union Territory. The Hon’ble Home Minister has said in the House that this is a temporary measure. Ultimately, J&K will become a state,” Mehta had told a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

Also Read: Marriages Don’t Require ‘Public Declaration’ Says SC

Also Read: Abrogation Of Article 370 Court Hearing Day 11: CJI Backs The Decision Of Centre; Read What He Said  

Special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir were “not discrimination but a privilege”

The Supreme Court first agreed with the Centre’s argument that the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution is “subordinate” to the Indian Constitution, which is placed on a higher pedestal, in regards to arguments opposing the repeal of Article 370. The argument that the former state’s Constituent body, which was disbanded in 1957, was actually a legislative body, did not, however, seem to be accepted by the court.

The Centre claimed that citizens had been misled into believing that the special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir were “not discrimination but a privilege” without mentioning the two main political parties of the former state. “Even today two political parties are before this court defending Article 370 and 35A,” the solicitor general told the top court on the 11th day of hearing the litany of pleas challenging the abrogation of the constitutional provision which bestowed special status to the erstwhile state.