Qatar World Cup 2022LIVE updates: Croatia vs Belgium; Canada vs Morocco at 8.30 p.m.

Kashmir: five-judge Supreme Court Bench to hear pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370

SC also allows CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury to visit J&K to meet party colleague Md Yusuf Tarigami

August 28, 2019 11:14 am | Updated December 04, 2021 10:37 pm IST

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File

A view of the Supreme Court of India. File

The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a five-judge Bench petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.

A Presidential Order on August 5 blunted Article 370 , through which special rights and privileges were accorded to the State people since 1954 in accordance with the Instrument of Accession.

The special status was bestowed on the State by incorporating Article 35A. It was incorporated by an order of President Rajendra Prasad in 1954 on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. Parliament was not consulted when the President incorporated Article 35A through a Presidential Order issued under Article 370.

“Let all the petitions on Article 370 issue go to a five-judge Bench for hearing,” Chief Justice of India (CJI)Ranjan Gogoi, heading a three-judge Bench, said.

Also read | Jammu & Kashmir: From a State with autonomy to two Union Territories

The order came amid fervent prayers by the government, represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, to exercise restraint as far as orders and oral observations on Jammu and Kashmir were concerned.

“The Article 370 issue has international and cross-border implications. Whatever statements made here are sent to the United Nations,” Mr. Venugopal seemed to caution.

“Does this mean the Supreme Court cannot do its duty?” senior advocate Ashwani Kumar, for one of the petitioners, asked Mr. Venugopal.

“We know our duties,” Chief Justice Gogoi told the lawyers, in a clipped manner.

The CJI indicated the Constitution Bench may start hearing the matter from October beginning.

Permission for Yechury to meet party colleague Tarigami

The three-judge Bench allowed Sitaram Yechury , general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), to visit Jammu and Kashmir to meet his party colleague M.Y. Tarigami.

Mr. Yechury, represented by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, said he wanted to meet Mr. Tarigami as there was no news of him. He wanted to know about the welfare and whereabouts of his colleague.

Mr. Mehta said Mr. Tarigami’s health was monitored every day and “he is hale and hearty”. “What can happen to him [Tarigami]? He is provided Z-category security.”

“Whether he has Z or Z Plus category, if a citizen wants to go and meet him, you have to let him,” Chief Justice Gogoi told Mr. Mehta.

Mr. Mehta said the government would make arrangements to escort Mr. Yechury.

The Chief Justice retorted, “You don’t escort, he [Yechury] will go on his own.”

Chief Justice Gogoi also agreed to Mr. Ramachandran’s assurance that Mr. Yechury would give an undertaking to limit his trip to J&K only to meet Mr. Tarigami and not travel around.

“If he does that, you report back to us,” the Chief Justice told Mr. Mehta.

Also read | On the wrong side: On PCI backing Kashmir restrictions

The court also decided not to sit on the fence any more and issued notice to the government on the basis of several petitions challenging media restrictions and information blackout in the State. It sought a response from the government within the next seven days.

In the past two hearings on pleas filed by Anuradha Bhasin and others, the court adopted a wait and watch approach, expecting the situation to clear up enough for restoration of communications in the Valley.

The three-judge Bench assembled on Wednesday for a special session to examine the dozen writ petitions dealing with the various issues triggered by the abrogation of Article 370 and splitting Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. The Chief Justice said it had been difficult to juggle court schedule as Ayodhya appeals were being continuously heard by a Constitution Bench led by him.

The various petitions include one by the National Conference party challenging the Centre’s “unilateral” move to impose curfew and unravel the unique federal structure of India by dividing Jammu and Kashmir “without taking consent from the people,” a plea by young lawyer Mohammed Aleem Sayed, worried about his aged parents in the Valley, and one by Ms. Bhasin, Editor of Kashmir Times , who is fighting to free the press from the hold of the authorities.

A petition filed by detained politician Shah Faesal and Shehla Rashid Shora contended that the August 5 Presidential Order and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019 were arbitrary. They also challenged the proclamation of President's Rule in the State in December 2018.


The three-judge Bench allowed Mr. Sayed to meet his parents. It asked the State to provide him adequate protection. The court took up his case first.

Ms. Bhasin said a state of curfew was imposed in the entire Valley on August 4. People were isolated with no means of communication when the Presidential Order was issued. It deprived Jammu and Kashmir of its special rights and privileges. A new law was also passed, dividing the State into Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. In a day, Jammu and Kashmir lost its full Statehood and became a Union Territory of the Central government.

There had been a clampdown on free speech since August 4. There was need for relaxation of restrictions and to allow journalists “to practise their profession and exercise their right to report freely on the situation prevailing in J&K after clampdown on the entire State on August 4, 2019,” she said.

Ms. Bhasin, represented by senior lawyer Vrinda Grover, described the ground situation as that of “absolute and complete Internet and telecommunication shutdown, severe restrictions on mobility and sweeping curtailment on information sharing in the Valley, at a time when significant political and constitutional changes are being undertaken in Delhi to the status of J&K”.

She said the information blackout was “fuelling anxiety, panic, alarm, insecurity and fear among the residents of the Kashmir”.

Also read | How SC decides the cases around Article 370 will have a deep bearing on democracy

Other petitions

Petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 questioned the Centre’s sudden move to “unilaterally unravel the unique federal scheme, under cover of President’s Rule, while undermining crucial elements of due process and the rule of law”.

They said what happened to Jammu and Kashmir “goes to the heart of Indian federalism”.

The NC petition said, “National integration is best served by a pluralistic federal model. Under this model, one size need not always fit all.”


The petitions said the Presidential Order substituted the concurrence of the Governor for that of the State government to change the very character of a federal unit.

The Presidential Order took cover of a temporary situation, meant to hold the field until the return of the elected government, to accomplish a fundamental, permanent and irreversible alteration of the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir without the concurrence, consultation or recommendation of the people of that State, acting through their elected representatives, they said.

They argued that the order used Article 370 to demolish Article 370. It amounted to the overnight abrogation of the democratic rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir upon its accession.

The basic purpose of Article 370 was to facilitate the extension of constitutional provisions to the State in an incremental and orderly manner, based upon the needs and requirements, without dismantling the State Constitution.

The August 5 order, by replacing the recommendation of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ with that of the ‘Legislative Assembly’ in order to alter the terms of Article 370, assumed that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir had a power that its own Constitution, under Article 147, denied to it. Thus, the August 5 order was ineffective, the petitions said.

Top News Today


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.