The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear a petition seeking restoration of statehood to the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir on August 8. A three‑judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India has scheduled the case for preliminary hearing to determine its maintainability and frame any necessary procedural orders. The petition, filed after the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, challenges changes made in 2019 which downgraded the state to two Union Territories and bifurcated it into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.
The plea argues that Parliament’s abrogation of the special constitutional status and downgrading of statehood violated constitutional principles and statutory safeguards built into the Act of 1954. The petitioners assert that these fundamental changes lacked proper consultation with the state legislature and electorate and ignored the guarantees of autonomy embedded in the constitution. They seek reinstatement of the political and constitutional structure that existed prior to the revocation, along with the restoration of autonomy, representation, and full legislative powers.
In response, the Union Government has taken a neutral stance on the maintainability issue. During preliminary arguments, the Attorney General clarified that the government would not oppose the court examining whether the petition is maintainable; however, they encouraged the bench to examine procedural aspects before delving into the substantive merits. The bench agreed to first decide on keeping the plea pending and establishing procedural thresholds, including whether the subject matter is justiciable and if the Court has jurisdiction to entertain challenges to Parliamentary action.
The hearing on August 8 will explore these preliminary considerations. If the Court upholds maintainability, it could frame issues for full-blown arguments later. At the hearing, questions such as the requirement of state or legislative support, locus standi of petitioners, timing, and relevance of democratic processes will be examined. The Court’s decision will determine if the petition proceeds to substantive arguments on the restoration of statehood and constitutional rights.
Legal experts note that historic precedents addressing internal autonomy and federal safeguards will be significant if substantive review proceeds. The hearing is also expected to address whether challenges to revocation of constitutional provisions enacted via Presidential Order are permissible under Articles 32 and 131. The petition had earlier been tagged as sensitive, indicating the Court’s cautious and phased approach.
Once the procedural questions are resolved, the Court may invite detailed counter-affidavits from the government and others. The bench will also consider whether the plea raises political questions beyond judicial competence, or whether constitutional rights and legal safeguards warrant full judicial review. The Court's ruling on August 8 will thus mark a crucial turning point in the legal challenge to significant constitutional and political shifts made in 2019.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.