Supreme Court likely to hear plea seeking restoration of statehood to J&K on August 8
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan mentioned the matter on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran.
"The date (on SC website) shows as August 8. Let it not be deleted," Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted.
The CJI accepted the request.
Tuesday (August 5, 2025) marks the sixth anniversary of the 2019 abrogation of Article 370, which accorded a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370, even as it ordered that Assembly elections be held in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024 and its statehood be restored "at the earliest".
Last year, a plea was filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Centre for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within two months.
The application was filed by Zahoor Ahmad Bhat, an academician, and Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, a socio-political activist.
Delay in the restoration of statehood
"It is submitted that the delay in the restoration of statehood would cause serious reduction of democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir, causing a grave violation of the idea of federalism which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India," the application said.
The Assembly elections and the Lok Sabha polls were conducted peacefully in Jammu and Kashmir without any incident of violence, disturbance or any security concerns being reported, it said.
"Therefore, there is no impediment of security concerns, violence or any other disturbances which would hinder or prevent the grant/restoration of the status of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir as had been assured by the Union of India in the present proceedings," the plea said.
It said, "The non-restoration of the status of statehood of Jammu & Kashmir will result in Jammu & Kashmir being given a lesser form of elected democratic government, especially in light of the legislative assembly results being declared on October 8, 2024." It submitted that despite the apex court's directions for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir "at the earliest and as soon as possible", no steps have been taken by the Centre to provide any timeline for the implementation of such directions.
"It is submitted that Jammu and Kashmir is being operated as a Union Territory for a period of almost five years now, which has caused many impediments and grave losses to the development of Jammu and Kashmir and has affected the democratic rights of its citizens," it contended.
Jammu and Kashmir being an individual state which has gone through many struggles and hardship requires a strong federal structure to help in developing the area and also celebrating its unique culture, the application stated.
In its December 2023 verdict, the Supreme Court held that Article 370, which was incorporated in the Indian Constitution in 1949 to grant special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was a temporary provision. The President of India was empowered to revoke the measure in the absence of the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state whose term expired in 1957, the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stray dog order spotlights poor pet registration in Delhi
The Supreme Court's recent directive to relocate stray dogs in Delhi-NCR has put the spotlight on another long-standing problem — the capital's dismal pet dog registration rate. Despite it being mandatory under Section 399 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (MCD) Act, only 5,767 pet dogs are registered in the city, with 381 applications pending, according to MCD data. The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. (AFP/Representational image) Officials warn that this gap leaves a dangerous grey area between pets and strays, opening the door to disputes and misuse of the complaint system. 'Registration and the token serve as proof of ownership. With the recent SC judgment, we expect a surge in applications, especially for adopted indigenous breeds,' said a senior MCD official. Non-registration can attract fines and prosecution under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita dealing with negligent behaviour with respect to animals. The Act also allows detention of unregistered dogs found in public places, a step veterinary officials say is rarely enforced. Experts warn that poor compliance risks deepening confusion and triggering disputes. Gauri Maulekhi, activist and trustee at People for Animals (PFA), said the lack of registration creates a grey area between pets and community dogs. 'Some people collar strays, keep them indoors for long periods, or adopt indies as full-fledged pets. If neither strays nor pets are tagged, it's bound to cause confusion,' she said, adding that this could even pit neighbours against each other. 'A neighbour might report my dog as a stray, or conversely, collar a stray and claim it's a long-time pet.' The Supreme Court ruling on Monday had outright rejected the idea of stray dogs being adopted. It focused solely on relocation of community dogs and made no specific directive on pet dog registration. Asher Jesudoss, whose 2022 plea in the Delhi high court led to the creation of the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, said that since very few dogs are registered in Delhi, one can find it difficult to differentiate between pets and strays. 'As the name suggests, community dogs are those that belong to the entire community. But nothing stops an individual from collaring the stray and taking it indoors and keeping it as a pet. As per our rules, all breeds and dogs need to be registered. MCD needs to register all pets as proving ownership otherwise becomes tricky,' he said. Pet registration can be done online, with a uniform ₹500 fee. A veterinary official said actual registrations are far below the real number of pets. 'We issue a brass token for the dog's collar, which also lets us track vaccination status,' the official added.
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
CJI not superior to other SC judges, has same judicial powers: Justice Gavai
The Chief Justice of India is not superior to other judges of the Supreme Court and exercises the same judicial powers as the rest, Chief Justice B R Gavai said on Tuesday. The CJI made the observation as a three-judge bench, presided by him and comprising Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, took up an application by the Enforcement Directorate for recall of the court's April 26, 2023 judgment in Ritu Chhabaria vs. Union of India & Ors case. A two-judge bench of Justices (retired) Krishna Murari and C T Ravikumar it its 2023 judgment deprecated the 'practice' of investigating agencies filing chargesheet in court even before completion of probe so as to deny default bail to accused, and said that even in such cases the right of the accused to default bail will not be extinguished. As per the law, the chargesheet has to be filed within 60 days from the date of arrest of the accused in cases triable by lower courts and 90 days in cases triable by a sessions court. Failure to file the chargesheet within this period entitles an accused to default bail. Days after the April 26 ruling, the ED approached the SC and told a bench presided by then CJI D Y Chandrachud that the Delhi High Court had granted bail to the accused in a case probed by it based on the SC judgment in the Ritu Chhabaria case. The agency pointed out that the decision will have nationwide repercussions. By order dated May 12, 2023, the SC suspended the operation of the April 26 judgment. On Tuesday, CJI Gavai expressed his displeasure over the one-judge bench, even if that be the CJI-headed bench, hearing appeals against judgements of any other bench of the SC. 'When a bench of two learned judges of this court grants any relief, can another bench, merely because it sits in court number 1, of the same strength, sit in appeal over that judgment,' asked CJI Gavai. He said, 'We believe in adherence to the judicial propriety, judicial discipline. If we go on permitting this, then one bench merely because it does not like an order, will go on interfering with the orders of the other bench.' 'The Chief Justice of India is not superior to the other judges. He is the first among the others. The CJI exercises the same judicial powers as all other judges of this court,' the CJI said. Appearing for ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the three-judge bench that the petitioner in the matter in which the April 26 judgment was delivered had 'misused' the court's jurisdiction. He said initially, a person filed a petition saying her husband was in jail and sought permission to allow her to send him home-cooked food. 'Thereafter the petitioner (in the April 26 matter) filed a similar petition that 'my husband is also in jail, so permit me to serve him home-cooked food'. The petitioner further pointed out that a similar petition (the first petition) is pending before a particular bench… Both matters are listed together. Then first (petition) pales into insignificance. Subsequently, an Interlocutory Application (IA) is filed…in the second petition where the main prayer is home-cooked food. It says the chargesheet is filed with Section 173(8) CrPC, which says that further investigation is going on…' 'The SC (two-judge) bench takes the view that once you file a chargesheet with 173(8), you will get default bail because it is an incomplete chargesheet,' the SG said, adding that this was contrary to multiple larger-bench judgements. 'Thereafter all-across India, people started filing default bail applications once chargesheet was filed (with section 173(8)).' The counsel for the respondents sought to clarify that in the writ petition for allowing home-cooked food, the IA for default bail was filed before the first hearing of the case. On the first hearing, IA was allowed, and notice was issued in the writ petition. The SG said if the court did not want to look at the recall request, it can still consider the ED's SLP filed against the Delhi High Court order and settle the law. The court finally agreed to list it before a three-judge bench.
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court's stray dog order: Amicus report flagged ‘fundamental right' to move freely without fear of dog bite or assault
Underlining the fundamental right of a human being to move freely without the fear of a dog bite or assault, the Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae had recommended relocating stray dogs to shelters and not releasing them back on the streets. In his recommendations to the court before Monday's order, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus in the case, said: 'Putting the dog back on the street, where there is grave harm to us, is a direct violation of our fundamental rights to move freely without the fear of a dog bite/ assault.' On Monday, the court directed the authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate all stray dogs to dedicated dog shelters, underlining that they should not be released back on the streets. 'The 2023 Rules somehow seems to suggest that the fundamental rights of stray dogs to roam around in the street(s), attack human beings and create public nuisance is at a higher pedestal than the fundamental rights of human beings,' the amicus report said. The 2023 Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules deal with the management of stray dog and cat population. The Rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. While the ABC Rules mandate that stray dogs be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation, the amicus report said there is 'absolutely no material to suggest that the sterilisation would eliminate the chance of the dog biting.' 'In almost all developed countries, there are no stray dogs on the streets,' the report said. 'There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that our streets/ public places should be free from stray dogs,' it added. Citing rising dog bite data, the report said: 'The presence of stray dogs on our streets/ public places like airports, railway stations is a direct infringement of our fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21 (right to move freely and the right to life respectively) of the Constitution of India.' Citing government data, it said that in 2024, there were 37,15,713 reported dog bites across the country and 25,201 dog bites in Delhi. According to the report, Delhi had 3,196 cases of dog bites in January alone. 'If figures of January 2025 are any indication, the cases of dog bites have increased by 50%,' the report said. The report suggested that the Court could issue directives to municipal authorities in Delhi to 'begin by creating dog shelter(s) for say 5,000 dogs in the next 6-8 weeks.' It also recommended that stray dogs captured would be detained in shelters and 'would not be released on the streets/ public spaces under any circumstance.' The amicus also recommended that stray dogs captured may be put up for adoption to individuals through animal welfare organisations.
