'Jammu & Kashmir Has Progressed; People Are Happy' : Union Tells Supreme Court; Gets 4 Weeks To Respond To Plea For Statehood

The Supreme Court today granted four weeks' time to the Union Government to file its reply to applications seeking restoration of the statehood of Jammu & Kashmir.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran recorded the submission of Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that while peaceful elections were conducted last year in the region, more time was required to consider the issue of restoring statehood in light of security concerns and the recent Pahalgam terror attacks."SG states that the elections were done in a peaceful manner and a government was elected. It is submitted that during the period of the last 6 years, there has been substantial progress in J&K. He however submits that certain events had taken place in the recent past, like the Pahalgam incident, which will have to be taken into consideration while taking a final call on this hearing." The Solicitor General also informed the Court that the Union Government was in consultation with the local administration regarding the matter.Among the applicants are MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone, college teacher Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik. The applications have been filed in the disposed of case In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution, in which the Supreme Court had upheld the abrogation of Jammu & Kashmir's special status.Pahalgam Attack Happened Under 'Their Watch': Sr Adv Gopal S Claims, SG Objects During the hearing, CJI Gavai remarked that the region remained prone to security threats, referring to the Pahalgam incident.At this stage, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Zahoor Bhat, said:, "Pahalgam happened under their watch, Union of India- Union Territory - so under their watch." Objecting strongly, SG Mehta said, “What is 'their watch'? It is under our government. I object to this.”Sankaranarayanan referred to the Union's assurance in the 2023 Article 370 judgment regarding restoration of statehood, stating, “Much water has flowed since then.”To this, SG Mehta quipped, “And blood too,” adding, “This is a citizen before the Supreme Court who treats the Government of India as your government and not my government.”Sankaranarayanan urged that the matter be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench since the original judgment on abrogation was delivered by a bench of similar strength. He clarified that the applicants only sought enforcement of the Union's undertaking within a reasonable time.Non-Restoration of Statehood Raises Larger Issue Of Federalism In The Country : Sr Adv. Maneka GuruswamySenior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for MLA Irfan Hafiz Lone, argued that continued denial of statehood raises serious constitutional questions about Indian federalism.“If a State can be converted into a Union Territory like this, what does it mean for federalism? The resolution for statehood was passed a year ago by the J&K assembly. Allowing J&K to remain a UT sets a dangerous precedent,” she said.Referring to constitutional provisions, she added, “Articles 1, 2, and 3 do not envisage the conversion of a State into a Union Territory. The Union gave an assurance. What is the consequence of not following that assurance for federalism?”Senior Advocate N.K. Bhardwaj, appearing for other applicants, warned that permitting such a conversion would allow the Centre to downgrade any State into a UT at will : "If this is permitted, then they can convert any State into a UT if the government is inconvenient. Tomorrow if they convert UP as a UT. UP has a border with Nepal. Or convert Tamil Nadu. You cannot convert a State to UT. This has never happened in our history."Sr Adv PC Sen, appearing for the one petitioner in the challenge to the Abrogation of Article 370, submitted that at least the Parliament can consider or attempt to introduce the Bill for restoration and begin the discussion in the Parliament, if not at the Court. Sen also referred to the Report of Justice Anjana Prakash and Justice AP Shah, which mentions the increase in suicides in the J&K region and low rates of investments. SG interjected, saying that the Counsel was trying to create a 'grim picture' of the region to the whole world. "Why are you getting agitated? Let him complete the submissions," CJI told the SG.People Of Jammu Suffering Because Of Lack Of State Finances Counsel representing lawyers from Jammu submitted that citizens in the region were suffering from unemployment and lack of development funds."Jammu region particularly there is no developmental work, when the people go to the legislators, they say (legislators) that we do not have finances - we cannot take care of the developmental works in the Jammu region" He stressed that despite the Pahalgam Attack, peace has been maintained in the region, Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board is taking care of the Yatra amidst the heavy rains, there has been influx of tourists- thus, security threat cannot be a reason to deny statehood. Responding, SG Mehta maintained, ...

'Jammu & Kashmir Has Progressed; People Are Happy' : Union Tells Supreme Court; Gets 4 Weeks To Respond To Plea For Statehood

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The Centre said that factors like Pahalgam incident must be considered before deciding the grant of statehood.

Tags