New Delhi: The Centre told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Union Territory status for Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) was not permanent, and it would make an elaborate statement on the issue on August 31.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta conveyed the Centre’s response to the court after a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, hearing pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370, asked for a specific time frame for restoration of electoral democracy in J&K.
“So far as Ladakh is concerned, its UT status is going to remain for some time,” Mehta said.
He read out from the statement Union home minister Amit Shah had made while tabling the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill in 2019 saying J&K's statehood would be restored in due course.
The bench said, “Democracy is important, although we agree that in view of the national security scenario, reorganisation of the state can be done.”
The court said lack of electoral democracy could be allowed to go on. “This has to come an end... give us the specific time frame as to when will you restore actual democracy.”
Hearing on the issue for the 12th day, the apex court questioned the Centre about the validity of its decision to divide the erstwhile state into two Union Territories, saying the petitioners who have challenged its decision contended it was beyond the powers of Parliament.
Mehta said Jammu and Kashmir was divided into two Union Territories looking at its peculiar situation and the fact that being a border state the matter also involved national security.
The CJI while referring to creation of Chandigarh as a Union Territory said, “So, you make them as Union Territories, but at a later point of time when the situation stabilises, the union territories are made into a state. We understand that these are matters of national security and the preservation of the nation itself is the overriding concern. Equally, restoration of democracy is also important.”“Can the Union not have control over a stipulated period to bring stability? Whether it is a state or UT, if all of us survive, then the nation survives. Of course, if the nation survives, then only we survive, else everything is gone. Then should we not give that much leeway to Parliament that for some period a State is made into a UT and then, after a period, it becomes a state,” he said.
The bench also questioned the attorney general as to how proviso 3 to Article 370 can be given a go-by while abrogating the provision.
Article 370 (3) says, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause ( 2 ) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”
The CJI contended that Article 370 says the recommendation of the constituent assembly shall be “necessary” and “before” the President issues a notification, and so it cannot be a post facto recommendation.
