Srinagar, July 11: The Supreme Court of India has announced that it will begin the final hearing of the batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution on August 2. The hearings will take place on a day-to-day basis, except for Mondays and Fridays.
The Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with four other justices, will preside over the case. All parties involved are required to file their documents, compilations, and written submissions by July 27, reported Bar and Bench.
The Court also appointed advocates Prasanna and Kanu Agrawal as nodal counsel for the preparation of common convenience compilations. Any additional additions to the compilations must be made by July 27. The nodal counsel is responsible for ensuring that the compilations are indexed and paginated, and copies will be given to all counsel.
The Court noted that the latest affidavit filed by the government will not be relied upon to argue the question of constitutionality. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the affidavit’s content would have no bearing on the constitutional question and would not be relied upon.
Furthermore, two petitioners, Shah Faesal and Shehla Rashid, requested permission to withdraw their pleas, and the Court allowed their request.
This development comes almost four years after the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to the former state of Jammu & Kashmir. Over 20 petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 are pending before the Supreme Court. In March 2020, a five-judge Constitution Bench declined to refer the petitions to a seven-judge Constitution Bench, stating that there was no conflict between the two previous judgments on the interpretation of Article 370.
The Union Home Ministry filed a fresh affidavit stating that Jammu & Kashmir has witnessed stability and progress after the abrogation of Article 370.
During the hearing, the petitioners requested time to respond to the fresh affidavit, but the Court expressed disapproval of the practice of filing additional documents and affidavits, stating that once the compilation is filed, it should be frozen.
The Court emphasized that the fresh affidavit filed by the Centre does not have any bearing on the constitutional question to be decided by the Court.