New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to address the long-standing legal uncertainties surrounding the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status by the Modi government.
A five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, will schedule hearings on a batch of 23 petitions challenging the August 2019 decision.
The matter has been in limbo since the last hearing in March 2020.
Today, the court announced that the five-judge bench will meet on July 11 to "pass directions," which means scheduling hearings to challenge the Presidential Order of August 5-6, 2019, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Typically, when a constitution bench is formed, it first issues directions after assessing the expected duration of the case and the number of lawyers involved. Legal experts anticipate that the actual hearings will likely take place in August.
The bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, and Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, needs to deliver its verdict before Justice Kaul's retirement at the end of December.
The revocation of Article 370 on August 5-6, 2019, nullified the special rights and privileges accorded to the people of Jammu and Kashmir since 1954, in line with the conditions under which the former princely state acceded to India in 1947.
The special status was established through the introduction of Article 35A by a Presidential Order in 1954, based on the recommendation of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet.
Following the dilution of Article 370 in August 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act of 2019 came into effect, leading to the bifurcation of the state into two Union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
Overnight, Jammu and Kashmir lost its status as a state and became a Union territory, coinciding with a period of lockdown in the region.
The petitioners argue that the Indian government's decision was "unilateral" and lacked the "consent of the people of Jammu and Kashmir." In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court declined the petitioners' request to refer the matter to a larger bench.
Despite assurances of an "early" listing of the petitions, as stated by former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, the issue has remained unresolved even after four years since the dilution of Article 370.
Former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana also agreed to an "early" hearing on April 25 and September 25 of last year, but no progress was made.
The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in February this year, who then said that he would “take a call” on listing, according to Bar and Bench.
While the Modi government claimed that its actions aimed to fully integrate Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India, the region remains the only area in the country governed by an administration reporting to the Union home ministry rather than elected representatives.
This has been the situation for five years, with the dissolution of the state assembly and the imposition of Governor's Rule in June 2018.
The Supreme Court's decision to finally address the matter has been welcomed by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and National Conference (NC).
‘Welcome Hon’ble SC’s decision to finally hear petitions pending since 2019 challenging the illegal abrogation of Article 370. I hope justice is upheld & delivered for the people of J&K. The SC ruling on Article 370 maintained that the provision can be abrogated only on the recommendation of the J&K constituent assembly”, former Jammu &Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti, who heads the PDP, tweeted.
Former chief minister of the NC tweeted: “Finally the bench is constituted. I look forward to the hearings beginning in right earnest now”, tweeted former chief minister Omar Abdullah of NC.
Salman Soz of the Congress said, “If the Supreme Court carefully assesses the actions of August 5, 2019, I have no doubt that it will conclude that the Modi Govt engaged in blatant subversion of Constitutional provisions, unlawfully disempowered the people of J&K, and dealt a blow to Indian democracy.”