New Delhi: The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Jammu and Kashmir’s union territory status is not a permanent thing and that it will present a detailed statement on the contentious political issue in the court on August 31. Union Territory status of Ladakh to continue for some time, Centre tells SC bench hearing petitions against abrogation of Article 370. The central government’s answer was communicated to the court by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, after a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who was listening to the pleas against the scrapping of Article 370, asked it to define a time frame for restoring electoral democracy in the former state.
“The union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is not a lasting thing. As for Ladakh, its UT status will continue for some time,” Mehta said. The top government law officer said he will give a detailed statement on the future of the union territory status of J-K and Ladakh before the bench, which also includes Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, on August 31.
The bench, which was listening to Mehta’s arguments supporting the Centre’s decision to scrap the special status of the old state and its reorganisation, said, “Democracy is important, though we agree that in view of the national security situation, reorganisation of the state can be done.”
The court, however, said absence of electoral democracy cannot be allowed to go on forever. “This has to end… Give us the specific time frame as to when will you bring back actual democracy. We want to record this,” the bench said, and asked Mehta and Attorney General R Venkataramani to seek instructions from the political executive and get back to the court.
Article 35(A) Took Away Fundamental Rights: CJI
Earlier on Monday, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud observed that by enacting Article 35A, fundamental rights of equality, liberty to practice profession in any part of the country and others were virtually taken away. He made the remarks after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, referred to the contentious provision in the Indian Constitution, saying it gave special rights to only permanent residents of the erstwhile state and was discriminatory. Without naming the two mainstream political parties of the erstwhile state, the Centre told a five-judge bench headed by CJI Chandrachud that citizens have been misguided that the special provisions for Jammu and Kashmir were "not discrimination but a privilege".
"Even today two political parties are before this court defending Article 370 and 35A," the solicitor general told the top court on the 11th day of hearing the litany of pleas challenging the abrogation of the constitutional provision which bestowed special status to the erstwhile state of J-K.
The solicitor general further submitted that the effect of Article 370 was such that by the administrative act of the President and the state government, any part of the Constitution of India with respect to J-K can be amended, altered or even "destroyed" and new provisions can be created. He said that after the 42nd amendment, the words "Socialist" and "Secular" were not made applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. "Even the word "Integrity" is not there. Fundamental duties were not there, which exists in the Indian Constitution.
