CJI Gavai bats in favour of Article 370 abrogation, quotes Ambedkar's ‘one nation, one Constitution' stance
CJI Gavai was speaking at the inauguration of the Constitution Preamble in Nagpur, where he said that the Supreme Court drew inspiration from Ambedkar's vision of a united India under a single Constitution while upholding the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 that granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, news agency PTI reported.
Justice Gavai was part of a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, that unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370.
"When Article 370 was challenged, it came before us, and when the hearing was underway, I recalled Dr Babasaheb's words that one Constitution is suited for a country... If we want to keep the country united, we need only one Constitution," he said, while addressing the gathering in Marathi.
On August 5, 2019, the Centre decided to strip Jammu and Kashmir of special status and divide it into two Union Territories.
According to the PTI report, Justice Gavai said Dr Ambedkar had been criticised, saying the Constitution provides for too much federalism, and in times of war, the country may not remain united.
However, he had responded, saying the Constitution would suit all the challenges and keep the nation united, the CJI said.
"See the situation in the neighbouring countries, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. Whenever our country faces challenges, it has remained united," Justice Gavai said.
National Conference (NC) Lok Sabha MP Aga Ruhullah said on Saturday that their party's struggle is not focused on restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir but rather on reclaiming the constitutional guarantees that were in place before the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019.
"My party can go to court, but I will only remind that our fight is not for statehood, our fight is for more than that. It is for those constitutional guarantees that were snatched from us in 2019," Ruhullah told reporters in Srinagar.
In response to NC chief Farooq Abdullah's comments about moving Supreme Court if the restoration of statehood is inordinately delayed, Ruhullah emphasised, "We should not forget our fight."
According to the PTI report, the Lok Sabha MP from Srinagar reiterated that the party's goal is to reverse the Centre's decisions to abrogate Article 370 and reorganise the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
"The BJP has said in its manifesto as well as in the Parliament that statehood will be restored. The allied teams of the BJP (in J&K) also said they will fight for the statehood, but NC's fight is not for statehood," Ruhullah said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
9 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Setting deadlines for president, governors can cause ‘constitutional disorder': Centre tells SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by state Assemblies would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, PTI quoted the Centre as telling the Supreme Court. Such a move could lead to 'constitutional disorder', it added. The Centre's submission was in response to a notice issued by the Supreme Court on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu about the court's April 8 ruling that set deadlines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills. A constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar is hearing the matter. In a written reply on August 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the judiciary does not hold answers to all problems in a democracy. 'The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. He added: 'If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another…the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by the framers [of the Constitution].' The April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling. Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the court on matters of legal and public importance. In his note, Mehta argued that the positions of governor and president are 'politically plenary' and represent 'high ideals of democratic governance'. Any perceived lapses must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through judicial interventions, he added. Challenging the April 8 ruling, Mehta said that Articles 200 and 201 deliberately contain no timelines. 'When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits,' PTI quoted Mehta as stating. 'Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit.' 'To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution,' Mehta added.
Hans India
9 minutes ago
- Hans India
Deadline for Prez, Guv will tilt power balance: Centre
New Delhi: Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. The positions of the Governor and Oresident are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Rahul Gandhi to kickstart 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' from Bihar's Sasaram today
Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi will on Sunday begin from here his 1,300 km-long 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' that will cover over 20 districts in Bihar, as the Congress steps up its campaign against what it claims to be "vote chori". With the Assembly polls barely three months away, Gandhi, along with RJD's Tejashwi Yadav and other Mahagathbandhan leaders, will launch the yatra from BIADA Ground Sasaram, and after 16 days, the yatra will conclude with a rally in Patna on September 1. Gandhi is also expected to address a gathering later this evening at Ramesh Chowk, Aurangabad. In a post in Hindi on X on Saturday, Gandhi had said, "16 days, 20+ districts, 1,300+ km. We are coming among the people with the Voter Adhikar Yatra. This is a fight to protect the most basic democratic right - 'one person, one vote'." "Join us in Bihar to save the Constitution," he added. The 'yatra' will be in a hybrid mode, on foot and by vehicle, as was Gandhi's Manipur to Mumbai Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, party leaders said. Addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Saturday, Congress' media and publicity department head Pawan Khera had claimed that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) had actually "exposed" the designs of the BJP to disenfranchise lakhs of voters belonging to the Dalit, Adivasi and minority communities, poor people and daily wagers. He had alleged that it was a conspiracy to not only steal our votes, but also steal our identity. "Today they will snatch the underprivileged people's right to vote, tomorrow they will refuse them the share in government schemes like free food and housing," he had claimed. Khera had also said that the Election Commission becoming like one of the "compartments" of the BJP's so called "double engine" was unacceptable and the Congress will not let that happen. "Whenever Rahul Gandhi ji has set out for a yatra, the democracy of this country has turned a page. 'Voter Adhikar Yatra' will be a historic march. It will prove to be a milestone in the history of our democracy," he had said. The 'yatra' will pass through Aurangabad, Gaya, Nawada, Nalanda, Sheikhpura, Lakhisarai, Munger, Bhagalpur, Katihar, Purnea, Araria, Supaul, Madhubani, Darbhanga, Sitamarhi, East Champaran, West Champaran, Gopalganj, Siwan, Chapra and Ara.
