news details |
|
|
| Kashmir parties maintain silence before Apex Court’s verdict on Art 370 | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 8: All Kashmir-centric parties have maintained a guarded silence as the Supreme Court is going to deliver its verdict on petitions challenging Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act. Except for Iltiza Mufti, daughter and media advisor to the Peoples’ Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti, no other Kashmir-based leader issued any statement before the verdict of the Supreme Court.
“Can hazard a guess - SC will uphold the unconstitutional revocation of Article 370 and nudge GOI to restore statehood (not a legally binding directive). Along with a vague framework to restore democracy by holding elections”, Iltiza Mufti posted on her social media account.
For the last three years, Kashmir-centric parties have been telling people of the Valley that the matter is sub-judice so they will not speak on this issue.
Secondly, during 16 days of marathon hearings, one thing has become clear those who challenged the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35-A in the Supreme Court were finding it difficult to defend their argument.
As reported earlier, three months after reserving its verdict on the much-publicized case, the Supreme Court will pronounce its judgment on the petitions challenging the abrogation of articles 370 and 35-A
A five-judge Constitution bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant will deliver the verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution which conferred special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Many petitions challenging the abrogation of Art Shah Faesal had withdrawn his plea long back
IAS officer Shah Faesal, who was one of the main petitioners against the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, had withdrawn his pleas from the Supreme Court.
Shah Faesal, the first Kashmiri to top the civil services (UPSC) exam in 2009, had resigned from his post in 2019 after the Central Government’s August 5 decision to end Jammu and Kahmir’s special status.
However, in April 2022, the government accepted Faesal’s application to withdraw his resignation and reinstated him in service.
In his recent post, Shah Faesal said that Article 370 was now a “thing of the past”.
There are 23 petitions filed before the Top Court challenging the August 5, 2019 decision of the Union government to scrap special status under Article 370 to J&K and bifurcating the state into two UTs - J&K and Ladakh.
The lawyers from both sides debated on the issues including the constitutional validity of the decision of the Union Government to abrogate Article 370 and Article 370. They also debated on the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which bifurcated the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on September 5 reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370.
A five-judge Constitution Bench had started day-to-day hearing of the pleas from August 2.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud heard the rejoinder arguments of senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Rajeev Dhavan, Zaffar Shah, Dushyant Dave and others on the concluding day of the hearing, which went on for 16 days.
National Conference Lok Sabha member from Baramulla Mohammad Akbar Lone, who is also one of the petitioners, had told the Supreme Court that there should not be an “emotive majoritarian interpretation” of the Indian Constitution by those supporting abrogation of Article 370, as Jammu and Kashmir was neither completely linked to India nor asked to sign a merger agreement like other princely states. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
