This is an archive article published on August 23, 2023
Article 370 hearing: Centre says ‘no intent’ to touch special provisions of Northeast, SC disposes of intervention plea
The intervention application sought to draw the court's attention to Article 371, which deals with the special provisions, and said the court’s decision on Article 370 will have implications on Article 371
A five-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, was hearing petitions challenging the Centre's 2019 move to abrogate Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcate the erstwhile state into two Union territories. Express Photo by Shuaib Masoodi 05-08-2022
Listen to this article
Article 370 hearing: Centre says ‘no intent’ to touch special provisions of Northeast, SC disposes of intervention plea
x
00:00
1x1.5x1.8x
With the Centre making it clear that it has “absolutely no intent” to touch the special provisions of the Constitution concerning states in the Northeast and other parts, the Supreme Court Wednesday refused to be drawn into a debate over them and disposed of an intervention application which sought to raise apprehensions.
A five-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, was hearing petitions challenging the Centre’s 2019 move to abrogate Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcate the erstwhile state into two Union territories.
“The applicant…has urged that apart from the provisions which are contained in Part XXI of the Constitution pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir, there are special provisions in the Constitution governing the northeast in the same part. Hence it has been submitted that the interpretation which would be placed by this court on Article 370 may possibly impact upon the other provisions,” the bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, and Surya Kant, said in its order.
“The Solicitor General submitted on the specific instructions of the Union government that the Union government has absolutely no intent to affect any of the special provisions applicable to the northeast and to any other part of India. The reference to the Constitution bench was confined to the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution. There is no commonality of interest between the issues which are sought to be addressed by the intervenor and the issues which have been raised in the reference to this Constitution bench. In any event, the statement which has been made on behalf of the Union government would allay any apprehension in that regard. We, therefore, close the intervention application which shall stand disposed of,” the bench added.
The bench said this following an intervention by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta as advocate Manish Tewari sought to draw the attention of the court to Article 371, which deals with the special provisions, and said the court’s decision on Article 370 will have implications on Article 371.
Tewari, who appeared for a former Arunachal Pradesh minister, said, “The underlying principle of autonomy in Articles 370 and 371 is more or less the same. Therefore, what Your Lordships will hold in this matter, either way, will have implications on Article 371…”.
Intervening, the SG said, “I have instructions to say this. We have to be very very responsible in assisting your lordships and we must understand the difference between temporary provision, which is Article 370, and special provisions with regard to other states, including the Northeast. The central government has no intention to touch any part which gives special provisions to the Northeast and other regions”.
Story continues below this ad
He added that he was interrupting as Tewari’s “submission would have a very potential mischief” and urged the court to confine the proceedings to Article 370.
Tewari said he “was not referring to the current central government. I was referring to the principal at stake”. The court was, however, not inclined to proceed with the issue any further as it disposed of the application.
Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry.
He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More