Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has sought Centre’s response on a PIL seeking direction from the Government to immediately restore high-speed internet  services and fixed landline phone services across all hospitals and medical establishments in Jammu and Kashmir. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi issued a notice to the Centre and tagged the matter along with other related pleas in connection with the Kashmir issue.

On September 11, an advocate named Satya Mitra had filed the plea on behalf of doctor Sameer Kaul and one Salim Jahangeer Kirmani. The petition also sought direction to the central government to desist and refrain in future from blocking or suspending internet and fixed landline phone services in hospitals and medical establishments, along with mobile phone services of doctors and other staff members working in hospitals and medical establishments in Jammu and Kashmir.

The court sent to constitution bench a plea filed by Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin seeking the removal of communication blockade in Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of provisions under Article 370 and free movement of journalists in the region.

On August 13, Bhasin had moved the plea, claiming Kashmir Times was not published owing to the curbs on communication services and movement. She had alleged that a bar was put on journalists’ rights provided under the different provisions of the Constitution.
The court also sent to constitution bench a PIL filed by child rights expert Enakshi Ganguly and Professor Shanta Sinha, alleging illegal detention of children in Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of abrogation of Article 370.

The court will commence hearing on the pleas relating to Article 370 from Tuesday.

On August 5, the Centre had abrogated Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution and the Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Act, 2019, bifurcating the former state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Kashmir) with legislature and Ladakh without one. Following this, a batch of petitions was filed in the top court challenging the
move.

(Source: ANI)


More from Supreme Court on Article 370

SC seeks report from J&K HC CJ on claims about people being unable to approach HC

SC asks Central govt to restore normalcy in Jammu & Kashmir

5-judge bench to begin hearing in plea challenging J&K Reorganisation Bill from tomorrow

Won’t rush into passing any direction on removal of restrictions on the media in J&K: SC

No urgent hearing on plea challenging J&K Reorganisation Bill

Also read

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A 5-judge bench of NV Ramana, SK Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ will begin hearing the plea challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution from tomorrow.

Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma had moved the Court seeking quashing of the Union Of India’s Gazette notification of August 5, 2019 for amending Article 367 of the Constitution pertaining to Presidential order on Article 370. Sharma, in his petition, claimed that the gazette notification was “illegal” and “unconstitutional”.

Earlier, the bench of NV Ramana and Ajay Rastogi, JJ had refused to give urgent hearing to the plea challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.

Sharma had mentioned the matter before the bench and said it may be raised by Pakistan in the United Nations. On this Justice Ramana had said,

“What are you saying? Can UN stay our amendments?”

On August 5, 2019, the Central Government had abrogated the Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution of India and the Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganization) Act, 2019, bifurcating the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir with legislature and Ladakh without one.


Also read:

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Terming as “very very serious” the claim that people are finding it difficult to approach the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the 3-judge bench of bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S A Bobde and S A Nazeer, JJ has decided to verify it by asking the Chief Justice there to “forthwith” submit a report in this regard.

“If you are saying so, we are bound to take serious note of it. Tell us why it is very difficult for people to approach the high court. Is anybody stopping the people from going to high court? Then it is a very very serious issue,”

The Court said that it will verify the claim after senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appearing for two child rights activists claimed that it is very difficult for the people in the state to access the high court there.

The CJI said he would himself visit Srinagar, if required, and he would also speak to the chief justice of high court about this.

“It is stated by Huzefa Ahmadi, senior counsel for the petitioners, that access to the high court of Jammu and Kashmir is seriously affected by the present situation in the state. We request the chief justice of the high court to submit a report on the above issue forthwith,”

Taking note of Ahmadi’s submissions, the CJI said, “You are saying that you cannot go to the high court. We have called for a report from Chief Justice of the high court. If required, I will myself go there.” He further said:

“We must know if there is denial of access to justice. I will personally talk to the chief justice of the high court after this matter is over because what you have said is very very serious thing.”

The bench warned however that if the allegations are found to be incorrect then the petitioners should be ready to face the consequences.

The Court was considering a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention on the issue of detention of children in Kashmir. During the hearing, the bench referred to the prayer made in the petition and said that petitioners have themselves said that children be produced before the juvenile justice committee of the high court. Ahmadi, however, said it is very difficult to approach the high court in the state.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Jammu and Kashmir, told the bench that all the courts in the state are functioning and even the Lok Adalats have been conducted there. When Mehta said that he wanted to make statement in the court on the issue, the bench said,

“We do not want anybody to make any statement. We will look into it. If people are not able to approach the high court, then we will have to look into it.”

The petition has been filed by child rights activists Enakshi Ganguly and Professor Shanta Sinha against the alleged illegal detention of children in Jammu and Kashmir in the wake of revocation of Article 370 and bifurcation of state. The plea has contended that all persons below the age of 18 years who have been detained be identified through an age census. Seeking directions that illegally detained children be produced before the Juvenile Justice Committee of the high court, the plea has also sought compensation from them.

Last month, Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganization) Act, 2019, bifurcating the state into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir with legislature and Ladakh without it. Following this, a batch of petitions were filed in the top court challenging it.

(Source: PTI)


Also read:

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Court has asked the Central and Jammu and Kashmir Government to file an affidavit on the petitions challenging the abrogation of the provisions under Article 370. A three-judge bench headed by Ranjan Gogoi has also asked the Centre and State to
restore the normalcy in Jammu and Kashmir by keeping in mind the “national safety” and “security.

The mobile facilities, including Internet, were suspended in the Kashmir region after the abrogation of Article 370, last month.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions, including one filed by the Kashmir Times Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin, challenging the communication blockade in Jammu and Kashmir. While Vrinda Grover appeared on behalf of Bhasin, Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal represented the Central government in the Court. During the course of proceedings, Grover contended that the communication blockade is a “hindrance to the media activities” and sought a direction to restore all kinds of communication activities for a smoother work for media.

Opposing the submission made by the counsel, AG told the court that the landline and many other communication facilities have been provided to media professionals for their work.

“Newspapers are getting published and TVs are also broadcasting,”

On the matter of the health services, he said that more than 5.5 lakh people have, by far, received the medical treatment and refuted the claim put forth by Bhasin that people are not getting medical facilities in Jammu and Kashmir. AG added,

“Major surgeries, including major ones like cesarean and other operations, are being conducted normally in Jammu and Kashmir,”

He also said that not a single person has died since the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special constitutional status.

The Court also sought a response from the Centre and Jammu and Kashmir administration on the habeas corpus petition moved by MDMK chief, Vaiko, seeking the release of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Farooq Abdullah, who has been under the preventive detention in Srinagar after the central government revoked the special Constitutional status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court also allowed senior Congress leader and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad, to visit Srinagar, Baramulla, Anantnag and Jammu. CJI, however, directed,

“He will not make any speeches or hold any public rally as per his own submissions.”

CJI further stated, “If requirement arises, I may visit Jammu and Kashmir.”

The court will now take up the matter on September 30.

Last month, Parliament had passed the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganization) Act, 2019, bifurcating the state into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir with legislature and Ladakh without it. Following this, a batch of petitions were filed in the top court challenging it.


Also read:

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The batch of petitions challenging the changes brought in the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir by abrogating Article 370 has been referred to a five-judge Constitution bench. The issued notices to the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir administration.

The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, JJ was not in agreement with the Centre that there was no need for issuance of notice in the matter as Attorney General K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta were marking their presence in the court. Refusing to accept the argument that the issuance of notice would have a “cross-border repercussion”, the bench said,

“We will refer the matter to a five-judge Constitution bench,”

The attorney general said whatever was being said by the court was sent before the United Nations (UN).

As the counsel appearing for both sides were involved in arguments and counter-arguments, the bench said,

“We know what to do, we have passed the order, we are not going to change.”

The matter would be listed for hearing in the first week of October.

The first petition challenging the presidential order scrapping Article 370 was filed by advocate M L Sharma, who was later joined by another lawyer from Jammu and Kashmir, Shakir Shabir.

National Conference (NC), a prominent political party from Jammu and Kashmir, filed a petition on August 10, contending that the changes brought in the status of the state had taken away the rights of its citizens without their mandate. Arguing that the legislation approved by Parliament and the orders issued by the President subsequently were “unconstitutional”, the petition prayed for those to be declared as “void and inoperative”. The petition was filed by Mohammad AKbar Lone and Justice (retd) Hasnain Masoodi, both Lok Sabha members of the NC. Lone is a former speaker of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly and Masoodi is a retired judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, who ruled in 2015 that Article 370 was a permanent feature of the Constitution.

There are other petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to abrogate Article 370, including a plea filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats, who have sought directions declaring the presidential orders of August 5 as “unconstitutional, void and inoperative”.

The plea was filed by professor Radha Kumar, a former member of the Home Ministry’s Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir (2010-11), former IAS officer of Jammu and Kashmir cadre Hindal Haidar Tyabji, Air Vice Marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, Major General (retd) Ashok Kumar Mehta, former Punjab-cadre IAS officer Amitabha Pande and former Kerala-cadre IAS officer Gopal Pillai, who retired as the Union home secretary in 2011.

A petition has also been filed by bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Faesal, along with his party colleague and former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) leader Shehla Rashid.

There are other petitions challenging the Centre’s decision on Article 370.

(Source: PTI)


Also read:

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court:  After the Centre submitted before the Court that the situation is improving in Jammu and Kashmir and the curbs are being lifted gradually, the Court said it will wait for sometime before passing any direction on the plea seeking removal of restrictions on the media in Jammu and Kashmir.

The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, JJ said,

“We would like to give little time. We have read in newspaper today that landline and broadband connections are being restored gradually.Therefore, we will take up the petition with other connected matters.”

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor, Kashmir Times, said there was a need for early restoration of communication mode for journalists to carry out their work. She had submitted that her matter was related to freedom of press.

Noticing that the landlines are working in the State as it had got a call from the CJ of J-K HC, the Court said,

“We will see when the matter can be listed for hearing. We will fix a date on the administrative side.”

Another bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, on Tuesday had refused to interfere with the Centre and Jammu and Kashmir government imposing several restrictions, saying “reasonable time” be given for bringing normalcy in the sensitive situation and had decided to hear the issue after two weeks.

(Source: PTI)


Also read:

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of NV Ramana and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has refused to give urgent hearing to the plea challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution.

Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who had filed the plea before the Supreme Court, had mentioned the matter before the bench and said it may be raised by Pakistan in the United Nations. On this Justice Ramana said,

“What are you saying? Can UN stay our amendments?”

Sharma had moved the Court seeking quashing of the Union Of India’s Gazette notification of August 5, 2019 for amending Article 367 of the Constitution pertaining to Presidential order on Article 370. The court asked Sharma to mention his matter before the appropriate bench–the CJI bench–which would pass appropriate orders on his petition. Sharma, in his petition, claimed that the gazette notification was “illegal” and “unconstitutional”.

In another plea filed by activist Tehseen Poonawalla, the Court again refused urgent hearing on a petition seeking withdrawal of curfew, blocking of phone lines, Internet, news channels and other restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir. The plea also sought an immediate release of political leaders from the illegal custody in Jammu and Kashmir. The Court said that the matter would be placed before Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi for listing.

(Source: ANI)


Also read:

Parliament passes the J&K Reorganisation Bill, 2019!

The Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Amendment) Bill, 2019– What it says?

Rajya Sabha approves the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019!

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — Passed by Rajya Sabha; Formation of J&K as a Union Territory!