‘Can’t ignore what happened in Pahalgam’: SC on plea seeking statehood for Jammu and Kashmir
The Supreme Court is hearing a plea seeking the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, with the applicants saying that not doing so ‘violates the idea of federalism’.
3 min read
The terror attack in Baisaran valley, Pahalgam, killed 26 civilians on April 22. (AP Photo) The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response on a plea seeking statehood for Jammu and Kashmir, and told the applicants that the ground realities, including what happened in Pahalgam, cannot be ignored.
“You also have to take into consideration ground realities…You can’t ignore what has happened in Pahalgam,” Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said, referring to the April 22 terror attack where 26 tourists were killed.
The bench, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran, added, “We do not have the expertise. That is (decision of statehood) for the executive and Parliament to decide.”
The court posted the case for hearing after eight weeks.
The plea by applicants Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, a teacher, and Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, an activist, said that the solicitor general had assured during the hearing of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be restored, but no decision had been taken in this regard so far.
Appearing for the duo, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said the government promised that it would give statehood.
A counsel appearing for a former chief secretary, who was also an interlocutor on Kashmir, said, “We were waiting for the Assembly session to see if something happens. We support the petition.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “We assured two things – elections will be held and thereafter statehood. Elections are held. Your Lordships are aware about the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations that go into the decision making process. I don’t know why at this stage this issue is agitated.”
He urged the court to post the matter after eight weeks, saying he will take instructions.
“Because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the waters. I don’t know why they are doing this,” Mehta added.
To the CJI’s remark that Pahalgam cannot be ignored, Sankaranarayanan said, “In fact, that is why statehood should be given. It gives a clear demarcation…”.
On December 11, 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench had upheld the 2019 move by the Centre to abrogate Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, as constitutionally valid.
In their plea, Bhat and Malik said, “The non-restoration of the status of Statehood of Jammu and Kashmir in a time-bound manner violates the idea of federalism, which forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India”.
You May Like
