A law student has moved the Supreme Court seeking intervention in petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Supporting the Centre’s decision, the petition filed by Nikhil Upadhyay said Article 370 was a temporary, transitional and special provision and was not meant to be permanent.
The petition, filed through advocate Ashwini Kumar Dubey, said that the intention behind the inclusion of a special provision for the state of Jammu and Kashmir was necessary in the light of the prevailing socio-political circumstances at the time, and more relevantly among the Union as a means of entry. India and the then ruler of the state. The top court on April 25 agreed to consider listing after the summer vacation the petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
A bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justice Hima Kohli had taken note of the submissions of senior advocate Shekhar Naphde, appearing for one of the petitioners, that the petition required urgent hearing in view of the delimitation exercise in the state. The top court had agreed to reconstitute a five-judge bench to hear the petitions after the summer vacation.
Several petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370 and provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which bifurcated Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, and Ladakh in 2019 headed by Justice NV Ramana was sent to a Constitution Bench. Then CJI Ranjan Gogoi. 370, the Central Government had revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
Besides Justice Ramana, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justices R Subhash Reddy (Retd.), BR Gavai and Surya Kant were part of the bench which refused to refer the batch to a larger seven-judge bench on March 2, 2020. . Petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to abrogate the provisions of Article 370 on August 5, 2019. The NGO, People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, and an interventionist had sought to refer the matter. A larger Bench on the ground that the two Supreme Court judgments – Prem Nath Kaul v Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 and Sampat Prakash v Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 – which dealt with the issue of Article 370 were contradictory to each other and hence, the present The five-judge bench could not hear the matter. The five-judge bench hearing the petitions will have to be reconstituted as Justice Reddy retired in January this year.
read all breaking news , today’s fresh news And IPL 2022 Live Updates Here.