New Delhi: Restoration of democracy is a vital component of our nation, the Supreme Court remarked Tuesday, while asking the Centre for an official statement to indicate the roadmap and timeframe for restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
Though the Centre submitted that J&K’s Union territory (UT) status was temporary, it said it would make a positive statement on it Thursday.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta told a Constitution bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Tuesday that J&K’s statehood would be restored, while Ladakh would remain a Union territory.
The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K and the bifurcation of the erstwhile state into the two Union territories of J&K and Ladakh in 2019.
The bench’s question over restoration of statehood arose when Mehta was addressing arguments on the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, under which the bifurcation took place.
“We need a statement from the Central government on this, that if there is a timeframe in view? The restoration of democracy is a vital component of our nation. Please tell us what is the roadmap for this,” said CJI Chandrachud.
The query was posed during the pre-lunch session of the hearing.
When the court re-assembled after the one-hour lunch break, Mehta said: “I have taken instructions and the instructions are that the UT is not a permanent feature and I will make a positive statement the day after tomorrow. Ladakh would remain a UT… but here we are only on Jammu & Kashmir.”
Tuesday also saw Mehta concluding his arguments in the case, which primarily focussed on the validity of the Reorganisation Act. Besides, the solicitor also argued in favour of the President’s Rule that was imposed in the state before the abrogation exercise was undertaken.
Also read: Article 370 hearing: No power in Constitution that lets Centre extinguish a state, Sibal tells SC
‘Control over stipulated period to bring stability’
While Mehta was on the point of J&K’s bifurcation, CJI Chandrachud asked him whether Parliament was empowered to change the state’s character from a state to a UT.
When the SG referred to the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act in this regard, the CJI then went on to question if the UT status was permanent.
“No, no milord. The question was asked even on the floor of the house,” the SG replied. He later even read out a statement made by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament at the time.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, one of the members on the bench, put forth a question on whether a portion of Assam (used as an example) could also be carved out to become a UT.
Calling it too extreme an example, Mehta said states cannot be made into Union territories under Article 3 of Constitution, for there needs to be a separation of states.
Article 3 mentions provisions for the formation of new states and for change in the areas, boundaries and names of existing states.
The CJI then pointed out that Chandigarh is the only UT that was carved out post-independence to govern the two states of Punjab and Haryana, under the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966.
“So you make them [J&K and Ladakh] as Union territory now, but at a later point of time when it stabilises, it is made into a state. 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. 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 deliberated.
However, the CJI added that it was crucial for the Central government to clarify when statehood would be restored and when elections would be conducted in J&K.
“We understand that these are matters of national security… the preservation of nation itself is the overriding concern. But without putting you in a bind, you and AG [attorney general] may seek instructions on the highest level — is there timeframe in view?” the CJI said.
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: ‘Mosaic of illegalities’ — Sibal keeps up attack on Article 370 abrogation on Day 2 of SC hearing