5 Petitioners Urge CJI Gavai In Open Letter
Thanks for studying this put up, do not forget to subscribe!
5 outstanding petitioners have written to CJI B.R. Gavai demanding a Supreme Court docket bench and early deadline to revive Jammu & Kashmir’s statehood. They warn delaying it undermines federalism and violates constitutional rules.
New Delhi: In a strongly worded open letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), B.R. Gavai, 5 notable residents and petitioners within the Article 370 case have raised critical considerations over the Union Authorities’s delay in restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s (J&Okay) statehood, which was revoked in August 2019.
Regardless of repeated guarantees by Union Dwelling Minister Amit Shah, they stated, the statehood of J&Okay has not but been restored, and the delay raises important constitutional and authorized considerations.
The petitioners embrace former Union Dwelling Secretary Gopal Pillai, retired Main-Normal Ashok Okay. Mehta, retired Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak, former Jammu & Kashmir interlocutor Radha Kumar, and former Union Secretary of the Inter-State Council, Amitabha Pande.
The group urged CJI Gavai to represent a particular bench of the Supreme Court docket to listen to petitions associated to the constitutionality of the elimination of J&Okay’s statehood, and likewise requested for a particular timeline for its restoration.
Additionally they demanded that the Supreme Court docket lay down authorized safeguards to make sure no future authorities can equally abrogate an current state’s standing.
Referring to the reassurance made by the Solicitor Normal earlier than the Supreme Court docket through the hearings within the Article 370 matter, they highlighted that the apex court docket shunned giving a ruling on whether or not the conversion of a full-fledged state into two Union Territories was constitutional or not, solely as a result of the
“Solicitor-Normal had assured it that statehood could be restored at an applicable time.”
The petitioners emphasised that the Union administration’s repeated guarantees in Parliament and earlier than the court docket counsel
“a tacit recognition that the elimination of statehood is unconstitutional.”
They took robust objection to the Solicitor Normal’s assertion earlier than the Supreme Court docket bench in December 2023, the place he acknowledged that statehood could be restored “in phases”, saying that this assertion nullifies the constitutional precept that
“no state could be demoted to a union territory in its entirety.”
They additional warned that such a coverage units a harmful precedent the place any state might doubtlessly be downgraded by the Centre, thus violating the core rules of Indian federalism.
Reacting to the latest terror assault in Pahalgam, the petitioners famous that the federal government could use the incident as a pretext to once more delay the restoration of statehood.
Nevertheless, they clearly argued that
“not solely is that argument (Pahalgam) not tenable, it may be argued that that is precisely the time to take action.”
They identified that
“the excessive turnout within the October 2024 elections with no violence, and absolutely the majority the electors gave the Nationwide Convention…indicated the individuals had voted for an elected administration with the energy to manipulate in accordance with public aspirations.”
Acknowledging the peaceable and democratic response of the individuals of J&Okay to the Pahalgam assault, they famous:
“the NIA investigations have now came upon that the sooner police model that Kashmiris had been concerned within the terror assault is ‘unfounded.’”
In a veiled criticism of the J&Okay administration below Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, the petitioners remarked:
“the LG Manoj Sinha administration’s haste in unjustified punitive motion has precipitated a substantial amount of anger on the bottom and this has been exacerbated by the sidelining of the elected administration and meeting from safety consultations and initiatives for redress.”
They expressed their concern that
“the post-Pahalgam surroundings, which was broadly conducive to the re-establishment of peace, is already being vitiated.”
They asserted that
“the simplest bulwark towards such vitiation is restoration of civil and political rights, together with oversight establishments, that can include statehood.”
The letter additionally highlighted that the elected Meeting of Jammu and Kashmir had handed a decision in favour of restoring statehood and that eight months have handed since Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha forwarded the decision to the President, however
“no motion has been taken, regardless of repeated requests by the Chief Minister.”
The group reiterated:
“the federal government’s repeated assurances on restoring statehood counsel a tacit recognition that the elimination of statehood is unconstitutional.”
They strongly rejected the Solicitor Normal’s plan of phased restoration, arguing:
“this can be a coverage that nullifies the constitutional subject that no state could be demoted to a Union Territory in its entirety. If that demotion was unconstitutional then it follows that statehood should be restored in toto.”
Issuing a warning, they added that this coverage
“places all states on the threat of comparable actions being taken towards them following the Solicitor Normal’s laid out plan.”
Stressing the historic significance of the problem, the petitioners stated:
“it was the primary time in impartial India that an current state had been demoted to Union Territory.”
They maintained that such an motion violated the Structure and the primary construction doctrine, which defines India as a federal democracy the place states’ rights are protected.
They recalled that the Supreme Court docket had shunned ruling on the legality of this transfer, solely primarily based on the Centre’s promise of well timed restoration.
ALSO READ: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Compromise, Affirms Advocacy for Animal Rights
The letter reminded the CJI that
“Then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud urged the federal government to revive statehood on the earliest,” and that “Justice Sanjay Khanna individually had held it unconstitutional.”
In conclusion, the petitioners urged the Chief Justice to take suo motu cognizance of their open letter, arrange a bench to determine the legality of the elimination of statehood, and push for its swift and full restoration.
Learn Letter:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Domestic Violence
