india

Updated: Oct 02, 2019 03:42 IST

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to stay the operation of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019 and stop the government from carving out two centrally governed Union territories.

The bench led by justice NV Ramana told the petitioners that it could “turn the clock back” if it found merit in their arguments against the dilution of Article 370, effectively revoking the special status of J&K under the Constitution, and reorganisation of the state into the Union territories of J&K and Ladakh with effect from October 31.

Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Subhash Reddy, Surya Kant and BR Gavai are the other judges on the bench.

The bench, set up last week by chief justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, gave four weeks to both the Centre and J&K to file their replies and asked the 10 petitioners to file their rejoinder within a week thereafter. It also directed the SC registry not to entertain any new petition on the validity of the Act. The matter would be heard again on November 14.

The Centre ended special status to Jammu and Kashmir and decided to bifurcate the state into two Union territories on August 5. A day later, Parliament passed the changes in the form of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, which is scheduled to be implemented from October 31. A fresh delimitation process will follow thereafter. Ten petitions have been filed before the top court against the Act.

At the outset, attorney general KK Venugopal and solicitor general Tushar Mehta sought time to file their counter affidavits. There was opposition to this request. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a petitioner, said notices had been issued to the respondents almost a month ago and the bench then hearing the matter had ordered both sides to complete the paper work.

As the judges indicated their willingness to accept Venugopal and Mehta’s request, Ramachandran asked for a hearing before this month-end or a court order to stop the government from carving out the two UTs as a hearing after the implementation of the Act would effectively leave the petitions infructuous. “We are asking for status quo,” he said.

But the judges made it clear they would not proceed without having the government’s arguments on record. “The court can always put the clock back if it agrees with you. But it cannot hear such a matter without getting a response from the government,” justice Gavai told the petitioners. Once the hearing on the merits begins, the petitioner would want to debate everything, justice Kaul added.

Ramachandran and other petitioners then beseeched the court to fix a two-week deadline for seeking a response. “It’s (four weeks)... a realistic time limit,” Mehta responded.

Venugopal pointed out the 10 petitions challenged the validity of the law on different grounds. “We would have to file 10 different responses. It’s a huge task,” he told the bench.

“It is better we wait for them to file their counter-affidavits,” justice Ramana advised the petitioners. “Let us ensure the pleadings are completed,” justice Kaul said. Justice Reddy also felt it was impractical to proceed without having the Centre’s response on the contentious issue.

On a request the bench assured the petitioners it would call for the relevant documents, if required, pertaining to the government decision to do away with the special status and privileges extended to the residents of J&K under Article 370.