- Hindi News
- National
- Article 370 Kashmir Jammu Kashmir Article Supreme Court Hearing Update; DY Chandrachud
Srinagar6 minutes ago
- copy link
On 5 August 2019, the central government had removed Article 370, which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. 23 petitions challenging this decision are being heard continuously in the Supreme Court since August 2.
The hearing on the petitions filed against the abolition of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir was held in the Supreme Court on Thursday for the 13th day.
On behalf of the Central Government, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said – We are ready to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir anytime, but after the Panchayat and Municipal elections.
In the 12th day hearing held on August 29, the Supreme Court had asked the Central Government that by when Jammu and Kashmir would be able to get statehood again.
On this, SG Mehta said- We cannot tell any definite time limit for this, but it is clear that the status of Union Territory is temporary.
In the last hearing, Mehta had told the Supreme Court – Jammu and Kashmir has been temporarily divided into two union territories (Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh).
Ladakh will remain a Union Territory, but Jammu and Kashmir will soon be made a state again. He will give a positive statement in this regard on Thursday.
During the hearing in the court room, when the CJI started talking on the phone
During the hearing on 370, CJI DY Chandrachud was talking on the phone. On this the CJI said- You must be wondering what I am doing on the phone during this important hearing. Actually, Justice BR Gavai is participating in the hearing from home. I am talking to him only.
Courtroom LIVE
Supreme Court: When will the government restore statehood to Jammu and Kashmir?
SG Mehta: Elections in Jammu and Kashmir will be held after Panchayat and Municipal Corporation elections. However, the Central Election Commission and the State Election Commission will decide which election should be conducted first. We cannot give any definite time limit for this, but we want to make it clear that the status of Union Territory is temporary.
SG Mehta: Development is taking place to make Jammu and Kashmir a full-fledged state. SG Mehta, on behalf of the government, told the court that compared to 2018 to 2023, there has been a 45.2% reduction in terrorist incidents and 90% reduction in infiltration. Law and order issues like stone pelting have reduced by 97%. Casualties of security personnel have come down by 65%. In 2018, the incidents of stone pelting were 1,767, which are now zero in 5 years. Organized bandhs were 52 in 2018 and now it is zero.
Kapil Sibal: Is the court keeping this in mind while considering the validity of Article 370?
Supreme Court: To this, CJI Chandrachud clarified that the bench would decide the validity of the decision to abrogate Article 370 on constitutional grounds and facts related to elections or the state would not affect it.
Kapil Sibal: Kapil Sibal said that 5000 people are under house arrest and Section 144 is applicable in the entire state. So how can one be closed like this? Shouldn’t the court go into this area?
Supreme Court: On this the CJI said that we have asked for a roadmap on elections from the Centre. This is what they have given us, but we will decide on the constitutional issue.
Kapil Sibal: Sibal then said that these facts will go to the discretion of the court as they are trying to show how such a huge change has happened.
Before this, know what happened in the hearing held for 11 days.
28 August- CJI said- 35A took away the rights of non-Kashmiris.
In the hearing of August 28, the court termed Article 35A as an article violating the rights of citizens. The CJI said that the people of Jammu and Kashmir were privileged under Article 35A of the Constitution, but due to this article three basic rights of the people of the country were taken away. Because of this article, the rights of people from other states to get jobs, buy land and settle in Kashmir were violated. Read the full news here…
24th August- SG Mehta said- Jammu and Kashmir was the only princely state which had a constitution and that too wrong
The hearing is going on for the 10th day. In this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Jammu and Kashmir was the only princely state which had a constitution and that too was wrong. He said that there were 4 representatives from Jammu and Kashmir, including Lt. Sheikh Abdullah. Many princely states showed their willingness to accept the Constitution of India, while Jammu and Kashmir said that they will participate in making the constitution. The goal of ‘uniform status’ was while framing the constitution. One part of the union cannot be deprived of the rights enjoyed by the rest of the members. Read the full news here…
August 23- Center said- Special status will not be taken away from North-East: The petitioner had expressed apprehension, CJI said – When the Center is giving guarantee, then how can we doubt
During the 9th day of hearing (August 23), the Center told the Supreme Court that it has no intention of ending the special status given to the North-East states. On behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said this in response to the arguments of lawyer Manish Tiwari. In fact, Tiwari had said, apart from the provisions contained in Part 21 of the Constitution applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, there are other special provisions governing the North-East. Supreme Court said- When the Center has said that it has no such intention, then how can we doubt? Read full news…
August 22 – Argument of the petitioner – Article 370 was there till the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was formed in 1957.
On the 8th day of the hearing on Article 370, lawyer Dinesh Dwivedi, appearing for the petitioner, argued – Article 370 was implemented in Kashmir till the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was made in 1957. It automatically ended as soon as the Constituent Assembly was dissolved.
On this the CJI said- What are the features of Article 370 which show that it will cease to exist after the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. This means that the Constitution of India will remain stable till 1957 in terms of its application to Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, according to you, any further development in the Indian Constitution cannot be applicable to J&K at all. How can this be accepted? Read full news…
17 August: Discussion between Chief Justice and Advocate Dave regarding the existence of Article 370
PDP Chief Mehbooba Mufti was also present in the Supreme Court during the hearing on 16 August.
On the seventh day of hearing on Article 370, Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave, Shekhar Naphade and Dinesh Dwivedi presented their arguments before the bench. Dave argued that Article 370 could not be abrogated by invoking Article 370(3).
On this, the court said – Only if the constitutional process has been violated in the abolition of Article 370, it can be challenged. We cannot argue on the basis that what was the intention of the government behind its removal. Read the full news…
August 16: Dushyant Dave said – constitutional powers should not be used for political purposes
On the sixth day of the hearing on Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference’s lawyer Rajeev Dhavan said that Article 239A of the Constitution was not followed while converting Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. According to Article 239A, Parliament has the power to create local assemblies or council of ministers or both for certain union territories.
Advocate Dushyant Dave said that constitutional powers cannot be used to achieve political objectives. In 2019, the ruling party had said in its manifesto – Article 370 of the Constitution will be repealed. Read the full news…
August 10: Court said – difficult to say that 370 provided special status to him
On the fifth day of the hearing on Article 370, the Supreme Court had said that the surrender of sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir to India was complete with the merger of the former princely state in October 1947, and it was difficult to say that Article 370 would provide it with special status. Was, was permanent. It cannot be said that some elements of sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir were retained even after Article 370. Read the full news…
August 9: At the time of merger, Jammu and Kashmir was not like any other state, had a separate constitution
On the fourth day of the hearing on Article 370, Senior Advocate Subramaniam said that at the time of merger, Jammu and Kashmir was not like any other state. It had its own constitution. Both the Legislative Assembly and the Constituent Assembly are recognized in our Constitution. The basic structure will be extracted from the constitutions of both. Dr. Ambedkar had talked about the Constitution being federal and giving special rights to the states. Read full news…
August 8: Kapil Sibal said – you cannot make changes in 370, forget removing it
On August 8, on the third day of hearing on Article 370, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that Article 370 itself says that it can be abolished. Responding to this, Sibal had said, you cannot make changes in 370, forget removing it. Then CJI said- You are right, so the government itself has no power to change 370. Sibbal Bol- This is an interpretation clause, it is not a clause to amend the constitution. Read the full news…
August 3: Sibal said – 370 cannot be tampered with, got the answer – Section C of the article does not say so
On the second day of the hearing on Article 370, the counsel for the petitioners, Kapil Sibal, argued that Article 370 cannot be tampered with. In response to this, Justice Khanna said that section (c) of this article does not say so. After this Sibal said, I can show you that Article 370 is permanent. To this, CJI DY Chandrachud said, as of now the consent of Jammu and Kashmir is required and only ideas are needed to introduce the bill for other states. Read the full news…
August 2: CJI asked Sibal – Article 370 in itself is temporary and transitional.
On August 2, the first day of hearing on Article 370, the CJI asked Kapil Sibal, counsel for the petitioners, that Article 370 itself was temporary and transitional. Can’t Parliament repeal Article 370 in the absence of Constituent Assembly? Responding to this, Sibal had said that according to the Constitution, Article 370 can never be removed from Jammu and Kashmir. Read the full news..
On July 10, the Center filed a new affidavit in the matter
The last hearing regarding this matter was held on July 11. A day before this, on July 10, the Center had filed a new affidavit in the case. The Center had said that Jammu and Kashmir suffered terrorism for three decades. The only way to end this was to remove Article 370.
