Omar writes to all parties over restoration of J&K statehood
Omar said he has formally reached out to several parties, requesting their support so that a bill is introduced during the ongoing session of Parliament.
'I have written letters to all parties with a large number of honourable MPs in Parliament asking them to help us so that the promise (made by the Central government) on restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir is fulfilled,' the CM told media in Srinagar.
He hoped that parliamentarians would raise this issue so that a bill would be introduced during the ongoing session of the Parliament and the people of Jammu and Kashmir get the status of a state again.
The Chief Minister emphasized that the restoration of statehood is not a matter concerning an individual, a party, or a government, but a commitment made to the people of J&K.
'This promise was made in public rallies, in Parliament, and even before the Supreme Court. Now we want this promise to be fulfilled,' he remarked.
It is learnt that Omar has written to presidents of all national and regional parties, including NDA allies, over restoration of statehood. He reminded them that Prime Minister and Home Minister have made repeated assurances, both within Parliament and in public forums, that statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir.
Omar welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to list a hearing on restoration of statehood on August 8.
'It is a good thing that the date has been fixed. I hope the Supreme Court will give due attention to this issue,' he said. The Chief Minister said when the SC announced the decision on abrogation of Article 370, they made it clear that J&K should get statehood 'as soon as possible.'
'It has been years since to 'as soon as possible' and we haven't got it yet,' he added.
He credited the Supreme Court for ensuring the timely conduct of assembly elections in J&K last year.
'Had the court not set a timeline, I wouldn't be addressing you today as a Chief Minister. Elections happened because the Supreme Court fixed a deadline,' Omar said, expressing hope that the Supreme Court will now also intervene to expedite the restoration of statehood, if the government doesn't do it.
UNI MJR PRS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a minute ago
- The Hindu
13 Allahabad High Court judges urge Chief Justice to not follow Supreme Court's directive
Three days after the Supreme Court issued a scathing order barring an Allahabad High Court judge from hearing criminal cases until his retirement, several judges of the High Court have come out in support of their fellow judge opposing the implementation of the apex court's directive. Thirteen judges of the Allahabad High Court have written to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, requesting the convening of a Full Court meeting and urging that the apex court's order removing Justice Prashant Kumar from the criminal roster not be implemented. The letter was circulated on Thursday (August 7, 2025), even as the Supreme Court relisted the case in which it made the remarks against Justice Kumar for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. 'The Full Court resolves that direction made in para 24 to 26 in the subject order dated August 4, 2025 is not to be complied with as the Supreme Court does not have administrative superintendence over the High Courts,' the letter said. The High Court judges also recorded their 'anguish in respect of tone and tenor of said order'. On August 4, 2025, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan had reprimanded Justice Kumar for 'cutting a sorry figure for himself' and making 'a mockery of justice'. The apex court had taken stern exception to Justice Kumar finding nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. The Bench said the High Court judge had found nothing wrong in allowing a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' registered in the civil dispute. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' the Bench said. The Indian legal system has been witnessing a troubling trend of the increasing misuse of criminal law in matters that are fundamentally civil in nature. This tendency has been seen in civil disputes, such as money recovery, cheque bounce case, contractual disagreements, inheritance, property partitions, commercial transactions and others. In April this year, then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna came down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government over the growing trend of ordinary civil disputes being converted into criminal cases. His remarks came during the hearing of an appeal filed by two individuals facing a cheque bounce case, who were also slapped with criminal charges, including breach of trust, intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
ED need not act like crook while probing crooks: SC
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Thursday said Enforcement Directorate need not behave like a crook while investigating crooks under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and that it must operate within the four walls of the rule of law and established procedure. This oral observation came from a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and N K Singh, which was hearing petitions seeking review of SC's 2023 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case where the apex court upheld the broad powers ED enjoyed under PMLA. Additional solicitor general S V Raju requested the court to examine whether the review petitioners have pointed out even a single "error apparent on the face of the judgment" to cross the "maintainability" threshhold. Justice Kant chanced upon a miscellaneous application (MA) filed by a person, facing ED probe, seeking to join the review proceedings. "What is this procedure of filing MAs two years after judgment was pronounced? The practice of waiting for judges, who delivered the judgment, to retire to file such an application is deplorable and amounts to forum shopping," he said. Taking a cue, Raju said these are influential and powerful people with huge money bags and they can resort to any tactics. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo This triggered Justice Bhuyan, who said, "The crooks under investigation can resort to any tactics, but ED cannot behave like a crook. It has to investigate cases in accordance with law and the procedure laid down." Justice Bhuyan also flagged the low conviction rate in PMLA cases filed by ED. "I have observed in one of my judgments that ED has registered more than 5,000 ECIRs in the last five years but the rate of conviction is less than 10%. Even the minister admitted this in Parliament," he said. Raju, however, defended ED. "When an affluent or influential person is proceeded against, he engages a battery of lawyers, who flood the trial court with applications. The trial judge gets mired in disposing of the applications and gets little time to focus on conducting the trial in the main case," he said. Justice Kant said, "We are equally concerned about ED's image. You must improve your method of investigation and improve the rate of conviction. Why can't the govt set up fast-track special courts to conduct day-to-day trial of PMLA cases? Then the battery of lawyers would know that their delaying tactics would not work," he said. The bench then drifted towards the increasing possibility of cryptocurrency for money laundering. "We are not saying ban cryptocurrency. But there should be some regulation. Indian currency is also under certain regulations. Why can't crypto be subjected to regulations," it said.
New Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
13 Allahabad HC judges urge Chief Justice to defy SC order, barring colleague from hearing criminal cases
LUCKNOW: In an unprecedented move, 13 judges of the Allahabad High Court have taken strong exception to the observations made by a division bench of the Supreme Court concerning a sitting judge of the High Court. In a letter dated August 7, 2025, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judges urged the convening of a full court meeting to defy the Supreme Court's August 4 order, which stripped Justice Prashant Kumar of his criminal roster until his retirement. The judges argued that the Supreme Court lacks administrative superintendence over High Courts and, therefore, the directions in paragraphs 24 to 26 of the apex court's order—pertaining to Justice Kumar—should not be complied with. They further called upon the full court to formally record its displeasure regarding the tone and tenor of the Supreme Court's remarks. A full court meeting, typically reserved for matters of significant legal or constitutional importance, involves the presence of all or a substantial number of the court's judges. The Supreme Court's division bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, had sharply criticized an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar, in which he directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to assign him to a division bench alongside a senior judge. The apex court also mandated that no criminal cases be allotted to Justice Kumar henceforth. The letter, initiated by Justice Arindam Sinha in his individual capacity, expressed shock and dismay over the Supreme Court's observations. It stated that the remarks against Justice Kumar violated the principles established by the Supreme Court itself in Amar Pal Singh v. State of UP (2012), which emphasized judicial restraint when commenting on officers unable to defend themselves. The letter further defended Justice Kumar's order, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP and Sayed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Administration). Additionally, the judges objected to the Supreme Court's suggestion that Justice Kumar's order might have been influenced by "extraneous considerations" or "sheer ignorance," calling the insinuations unfounded and baseless. The letter, circulated under Chapter III, Rule 9 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, garnered the signatures of 12 other judges, underscoring the collective discontent within the High Court over the Supreme Court's intervention.
