E-Paper
SC reserves verdict after hearing pleas challenging repeal of Article 370
The five-judge bench was hearing the argument from both sides – petitioners and Union government – for 16 days.
Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgement on a batch of petitions filed in a long-pending case challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution that gave a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners also challenged the J&K Re-organisation Act which was utilised to bifurcate the state into two Union territories.
Also read: On Article 370, SC says Constitution doesn’t restrict Prez from reorganising a state
Five judges, including Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, of the apex court were hearing the arguments from both side – petitioners and the Union government – for 16 days, after the significant case remained dormant for over three years.
"We are satisfied with the arguments done. All aspects were argued convincingly," said Hasnain Masoodi, National Conference leader and one of the petitioners challenging the abrogation.
The hearing started on August 2 and over the period of 16 days, the apex court witnessed extensive arguments and discussions on the case from both sides. According to LiveLaw, the counsels from petitioners' side argued for first nine days. During the argument, the counsels discussed the nature of Jammu and Kashmir's relationship with India and stressed upon how the erstwhile Maharaja of J&K didn't give up its internal sovereignty to the Dominion of India.
In response, the Union government argued that the abrogation of Article 370 resolved the ‘psychological duality’ of the people of J&K and that it was not repealed earlier because there was a sense of discrimination against the people there. The Centre further argued that the maker of the Constitution of India considered Article 370 as a ‘temporary’ provision and that they wanted it ‘to die’.
Senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Zaffar Shah, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Dushyant Dave, Dinesh Dwivedi contended for the petitioners. From Union government's side, Attorney General of India R Venkataramani, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj were defending the decision.
