SC to hear cases on J&K lockdown

5-judge bench to begin hearing pleas today

New Delhi, Sept. 30: A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is all set to commence on Tuesday the crucial hearing on the challenge mounted to the legal validity of the Centre’s abrogation of the provision of Article 370 which gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi on Saturday had set up the Constitution bench of justices N.V. Ramana, S.K. Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant to commence hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the scrapping of provisions of Article 370. It was decided on August 28 to refer them to a larger bench.

A bench headed by the CJI, which on Monday dealt with other related petitions concerning the issues arising after the constitutional changes were brought in Jammu and Kashmir, said all such matters would now be adjudicated by a 3-judge bench headed by Justice Ramana.

Several pleas have been filed in the top court challenging the Centre’s August 5 decision abrogating provisions of Article 370 and bifurcating the state into Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The UTs will come into being on October 31.

Advocate M.L. Sharma became the first petitioner in the case when he filed a petition in the apex court on August 6 challenging the Presidential order on Article 370.

Later, several political parties including the National Conference (NC), the Sajjad Lone-led J&K Peoples Conference and CPI(M) leader Mohd Yousuf Tarigami filed pleas in this regard in the top court.

The petition on behalf of the NC was filed by Lok Sabha MPs Mohammad Akbar Lone and Justice (retd) Hasnain Masoodi. Lone is a former speaker of the J&K Assembly and Masoodi is a retired judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

In 2015, Justice (retd) Masoodi had ruled that Article 370 was a permanent feature of the Constitution.

Other pleas include the one filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats. They have also sought directions declaring the presidential orders of August 5 “unconstitutional, void and inoperative”.