The Supreme Court will give its verdict on Monday on petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to abrogate the provisions of Article 370 that gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Constitution Bench heard the arguments of both the parties for 16 days before reserving its verdict on September 5 on the petitions against the decision of the Central Government.
During this, the Center had told the bench that it was necessary to abolish Article 370 to provide the benefits of welfare schemes to the people of the state.
The Central Government had said that because of this (Article 370) the people of Jammu and Kashmir were not able to avail the benefits of the Central schemes which the citizens of other parts of the country were getting. While answering the questions asked by the Constitution Bench, the government had said that the decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a Union Territory is temporary.
The Center had said that at present it cannot give any specific time frame for restoring the statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, but made it clear that the decision to make Jammu and Kashmir a union territory is temporary.
ready for election at any time
The Center had said that it is ready for elections in Jammu and Kashmir any time as most of the work of preparing the voter list has been completed. The bench was told that it is for the Election Commission and the Jammu and Kashmir Election Office to decide on announcing the fixed dates for holding the elections.
Centre’s claim, reduction in terrorism and infiltration
The apex court was told by the Central Government that in comparison to 2018, the incidents of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir have reduced by 45.2 percent while the cases of infiltration have reduced by 90.2 percent. The Center said that terrorism and infiltration were the biggest problems of Jammu and Kashmir and the abrogation of Article 370 reduced them.
Consent of the people of Jammu and Kashmir was not taken: Petitioner
Describing the decision of the Central Government to remove Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir as unconstitutional, the petitioners told the top court that the procedures were not followed for this. Consent of the people of Jammu and Kashmir was not taken through the Council of Ministers, which was mandatory. It was alleged in the petitions that under the guise of restoring democracy, democracy was destroyed.
The apex court was told that there has been no democracy in Jammu and Kashmir in the last five years. The petitioners said that through the article in the Constitution which is meant to restore democracy, the government has defiled democracy in a state.
Parliament cannot declare itself a constitution
The Constitution Bench was told that Parliament cannot declare itself a Constituent Assembly. The bench was told that there would be 4 legislatures in this matter. First- Constitution of India, second Constitution of India applicable in Jammu and Kashmir, third Jammu and Kashmir’s own Constitution and fourth Article 370. The interplay between these is something that you (the court) have to look at and consider.
Cannot create two union territories
Along with the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioners also raised questions about dividing it into two union territories. He said that union territories can be formed by merging parts of two or more states, but one state cannot be divided into two union territories.
These lawyers presented arguments
Attorney General R to defend the decision on behalf of the Centre. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocate Harish Salve and other senior advocates presented arguments. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Rajiv Dhawan, Zafar Shah, Dushyant Dave, Sanjay Parikh and other senior advocates argued on behalf of the petitioners challenging the government’s decision.