SC To Consider Listing Of Pleas Challenging Abrogation Of Article 370 Giving Special Status To J-K

Several petitions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split J-K into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh — were referred to a Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ramana in 2019 by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

PTI

Updated on: 14 December 2022 11:00 am

Abrogation of Article 370

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would consider a plea for early listing of submissions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 which had given special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

“We will examine and give a date,” a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said when intervenor Radha Kumar, an academic and author, sought early listing of the petitions on the issue. Earlier on April 25 and September 23, a bench headed by the then CJI N V Ramana, since retired, had agreed to list for hearing the pleas challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370.

The apex court will have to re-constitute a five-judge bench to hear the pleas as ex-CJI Ramana and Justice R Subhash Reddy, who were part of the five-judge bench which had heard the pleas, have retired. Besides the two former judges, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, B R Gavai and Surya Kant were part of the bench which, on March 2, 2020, had declined to refer to a larger seven-judge bench the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 on August 5, 2019.

NGO, People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, and an intervenor had sought referring of the matter to a larger bench on grounds that two judgements of the apex court -- Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 and Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 -- which dealt with the issue of Article 370 conflicted each other and therefore, the current bench of five judges could not hear the issue. Disagreeing with the petitioners, the bench had said it was of the opinion that "there is no conflict between the judgements".?