The Supreme Court on Friday cautioned a recommend who throughout his arguments mentioned Kashmir changed into part of the rustic after abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution in August 2019 to watch out about his language.
“No. It has remained a part of the country for long time. These are certain special provisions. Careful in what language you use,” Justice S Ok Kaul, presiding a two-judge bench, advised Ravi Shankar Jandhyala, whilst listening to a plea that challenged the delimitation exercise, which beneficial expanding the collection of seats in J&Ok Assembly from 83 to 90.
The courtroom used to be listening to a plea through two Srinagar citizens — Haji Abdul Gani Khan and Mohammad Ayub Mattoo – towards the delimitation workout.
Perusing the plea, the bench additionally comprising Justice M M Sundresh advised Jandhyala that it seemed to be jumbled and that the courtroom discovered it obscure what precisely the prayer used to be.
Jandhyala answered that at the factor of abrogation, the stand is that “because it is abrogated, therefore, on August 5, 2019, Kashmir has become a part of this country…”. Before he may just entire, Justice Kaul intervened and reminded him about Kashmir’s place.
The recommend temporarily corrected himself and mentioned, “370 abrogated, thereafter all provisions of Constitution have been applied to J&K”.
As the courtroom fastened the following date of listening to to August 30, the senior recommend expressed the apprehension that the file may well be tabled in Parliament and then it is going to transform identical to a civil courtroom decree. “Then it will be a difficulty,” he mentioned.
But the bench requested, “We can restrain them from tabling it in Parliament?”
Justice Kaul additionally requested the recommend why the petitioner had no longer challenged it when the delimitation fee used to be first constituted. “If you are so anxious, why did you sleep for two years to challenge the earlier notification of 2020?”
Jandhyala contended that the delimitation workout “is contrary to the scheme of the Constitution… the essence of these (constitutional) provisions is that the extent of such constituencies as delineated now shall remain frozen till the first Census to be taken after the year 2026. Therefore, alteration of boundaries in extant areas could not be done because of these provisions.”
He mentioned the petition demanding situations the delimitation notification of March 6, 2020 and two next notifications — of March 3, 2021 and every other extending it for an extra duration of 2 months.
Countering the petitioner’s submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mentioned, “There are two kinds of delimitation provided under the Constitution, Representation of the People Act, 1951 etc. One is geographical delimitation due to rise in number of people etc by delimitation commission. Thereafter, there is second concept of delimitation which is undertaken by Election Commission, delimitation in terms of reservation for the seats to be provided….How much reserved for whom?”
Mehta mentioned the petitioner’s case is that this might no longer had been achieved as soon as Article 170 says the following Census will happen simplest in 2026. “Here what had happened was, by amending the erstwhile Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the Constitution has frozen the Census of 1975,” he mentioned.
The bench mentioned there have been more than one prayers within the petition and requested Mehta to place forth no matter he needed to say in a sworn statement.