Article 370 : Former MLA Tarigami Seeks Early Hearing Of Petitions In Supreme Court Challenging Abrogation Of J&K Special Status

It has been argued that if the matters are not heard urgently, grave injustice will be caused.

Tarigami in his plea  has submitted that despite the fact that the challenge to the constitutional validity of orders dated August 5, 2019 and August 6, 2019 as well as the J & K (Reorganization) Act, 2019 is pending before the Top Court, the Central Government has taken the following irreversible actions:

1. Constitution of a Delimitation Commission to mark boundaries in the territory for all the constituencies before an assembly election can be held.
2. Amendment of the Jammu and Kashmir Development Act allowing persons who are not permanent residents to buy land in Jammu and Kashmir if it is not agricultural land.
3. Closing down of institutions such as J & K State Women's Commission, J & K State Accountability Commission, J & K State Consumer Protection Commission and J & K State Human Rights Commission.

"In view of the aforementioned actions taken by the Central Government, it is submitted that challenge to the constitutional validity ought to be heard on an expedited basis; otherwise, the petition itself would be rendered infructuous in view of the irreversible actions of the Respondents, leaving the Applicant remediless," plea further states.

What Has Been Supreme Court's Response To Plea(s) Challenging Abrogation Of Special Status Of Jammu and Kashmir

In wake of the amendments, many petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, praying that the Presidential Orders issued under Article 370, repealing the special status of the Jammu and Kashmir, and the J&K (Reorganisation) Act, 2019, be declared as unconstitutional. One of the pleas averred that it was "striking at the heart of the principles on which the State of J&K had integrated".

The hearing commenced on December 10, 2019 - four months after the repeal of the J&K special status - before a Constitution Bench comprising Justices N V Ramana (now Chief Justice of India), Sanjay Kishen Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

​​During the course of hearings that took place before the Constitution Bench, some of the petitioners sought for the reference of the matter to a 7-judge Bench in light of the contrasting opinions expressed by two coordinate benches of the Supreme Court in the cases of Prem Nath Kaul and Sampath Prakash.

Through a judgement dated 2^ndMarch, 2020, the Constitution Bench held that there was no need to refer the matter regarding the challenging to the Presidential Orders issued under Article 370 to a larger Bench.

Since 2^nd March 2020, the pleas on Article 370 have not been listed.

Case Title: Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami v Union of India & Ors