New Delhi: The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Thursday a clutch of applications seeking restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner.
As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a Bench of CJI BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran will take up the matter for hearing on August 14 — a day before Independence Day.
Last week, CJI Gavai agreed to retain the pleas for hearing on board after it was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
One of the miscellaneous applications, filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, contended that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism".
The applicants argued that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
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.
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.
However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) 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".
It 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 May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was “no error apparent on the face of the record” and refused to list the matter in open court.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
