NEW DELHI —The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on August 8 a plea seeking restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai agreed to retain the matter for hearing on August 8 after it was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
The plea said that even after several months of the Supreme Court verdict, the statehood of J&K has not yet been restored, “which is gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism”.
“In 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 the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir.
However, it had ordered the Election Commission of India to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that “restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible”.
The Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state.
In the course of the oral hearing, SG Mehta, 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 Jammu and Kashmir.
In May last year, the apex court refused to review the Constitution Bench verdict and dismissed a batch of review pleas filed against the decision upholding the revocation of Article 370 as valid.
Rejecting the applications seeking listing of the review petition in open court, a five-judge bench headed by then CJI Chandrachud had said that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no case for review was made under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. — IANS
