Supreme Court’s 5-judge bench reserves verdict on Article 370 abrogation
- The Supreme Court heard the rejoinder arguments of senior advocates on the concluding day of the hearing, which went on for 16 days
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 which bestowed special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud heard the rejoinder arguments of senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah, Dushyant Dave and others on the concluding day of the hearing, which went on for 16 days.
The apex court said if any lawyer appearing for the petitioners or respondents wishes to file a written submission can do so in the next three days.
The submission should not extend beyond two pages, it added.
Several pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 were referred to the Constitution bench in 2019.
In the course of the hearing, the court heard Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, V Giri and others on behalf of the Centre and the intervenors defending the abrogation of Article 370.
The lawyers dwelt on various issues including the constitutional validity of the Centre’s August 5, 2019 decision to abrogate the provision, the validity of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which split the erstwhile state into two Union Territories, challenges to imposition of Governor’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir on June 20, 2018 and imposition of President’s rule in the erstwhile state on December 19, 2018 and its extension on July 3, 2019.
On Monday, National Conference leader Mohd Akbar Lone had told the Supreme Court that there should not be an “emotive majoritarian interpretation” of the Indian Constitution by those supporting abrogation of Article 370, as Jammu and Kashmir was neither completely linked to India nor asked to sign a merger agreement like other princely states.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Lone, had said that the sovereignty of India was never under challenge.
“We cannot make this case into an emotive majoritarian interpretation of the Constitution. If we look at history, Jammu and Kashmir is not completely linked to India. The erstwhile state had a separate detailed Constitution, administrative and executive structure. It was never asked to sign a merger agreement,” Sibal had said.
(With inputs from agencies)
Catch all the Business News , Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
MoreLess
First Published:5 Sep 2023, 06:00 PM IST
- Top Gainers
- Top Losers
- 52 Week High