By – Prakarsh Kastwar
The 23 applications submitted in opposition to the repeal of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir have all been heard. After 16 days of hearing arguments from both sides in the dispute, the Supreme Court deferred a judgement on the matter on September 5.
The case was considered by a five-judge constitutional panel made up of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Surya Kant, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Sanjiv Khanna.
What happened in the court today…
As soon as the case hearing began, the court initially went over Mohammad Akbar Lone, the head of the National Conference, affidavit.
Attorney Tushar Mehta The documentation for the Akbar loan was delivered to us last night. It is very evident from it that when the terrorist incident occurred, Lone’s sympathies were limited to the terrorists and civilians. He spoke of India as if it were a foreign nation.
The affidavit of Solicitor Tushar Mehta-Lone should indicate that they are retracting this comment, do not support terrorism or separatist action, and that no citizen of this country is permitted to make such a declaration. Is.
Rajeev Dhawan, a lawyer for People’s Conference A compromise, Article 370. There are numerous agreements in the constitution. Consider Article 25, which permits Sikhs to carry daggers. You want rid of that, right? A constitutional amendment must be made. It is a settlement, as is the entire Sixth Schedule.
Dhawan, Rajeev The creation of the Constitution is a process. Numerous people should be consulted over this. A choice shouldn’t be made till after that. It was claimed that Jammu & Kashmir does not accept socialism or secularism. As opposed to the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, which contains it. Any bill for reorganization in that session must be circulated, per the requirement in Article 3. It’s true that not all of the Center’s recommendations are binding, and things could change in the future.
Dhawan, Rajeev The Central Government lacks a plan for restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. They make the entirely false claim that statehood will one day be restored.
Dave Dushyant – Never was Article 370 ad interim. It was only made temporary so that the Constituent Assembly would have power. How can the government claim that Article 370 was only temporary when it was invoked numerous times? Did the change in the Center’s government cause Article 370 to become temporary?
Dave Dushyant – No one could explain what 370 is, thus it had become a contentious issue for various regions of the nation. It links India and Jammu & Kashmir. It is not true that the removal of 370 will cause the people of Jammu and Kashmir to perish; rather, it is their right to feel. Any constitutional promise that might be taken away in this manner? Additionally, they are Indian citizens, not aliens.
Supreme Court: We are holding off on making a ruling until we have heard all of the arguments from the parties. Within the following three days, any party may submit a written statement to the court if it wishes to add anything additional to the discussion.