National Conference may approach Supreme Court over J-K statehood delay: Former CM Farooq Abdullah
Anantnag (Jammu and Kashmir) [India], June 21 (ANI): Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister and National Conference (NC) president Farooq Abdullah on Saturday cautioned that his party may be left with no choice but to approach the Supreme Court if the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir continues to be delayed.
Speaking to reporters, Abdullah said, 'It's been eight months (since the J&K government was formed). I am hopeful that when statehood is restored here, we will also get (administrative) powers... Our stand is that we are waiting (for J&K statehood). But if there are delays, we will have no option but to go to the Supreme Court,'
His remarks come at a time when the NC continues to push for the restoration of both statehood and the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, which was revoked by the Centre in August 2019 through the abrogation of Article 370. The move had also led to the bifurcation of the former state into two Union Territories--Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The NC's renewed warning follows a meeting of its Working Committee held at the party headquarters in Srinagar under the chairmanship of Farooq Abdullah. The committee adopted seven resolutions covering key political, security, and civil rights issues, with the demand for restoration of special status and statehood being central.
'The Working Committee unanimously reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. The Committee reiterated that this is central to the aspirations and dignity of the people and must be addressed without further delay. We will continue to fight for its restoration,' the resolution read.
The party also reiterated its call for the restoration of full statehood, pointing to commitments made both in Parliament and by the Supreme Court. 'The Working Committee also urged the Government of India to restore full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir immediately, as promised on the floor of Parliament, repeatedly echoed in the public domain, and also committed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court,' the NC said.
Meanwhile, on a separate issue, Farooq Abdullah voiced concern over the escalating tensions in the Middle East, urging all parties to exercise restraint. 'I pray that God gives wisdom to Iran and Israel both. Trump should talk about peace. This conflict can only be solved with peace,' he said, underscoring the need for diplomatic solutions amid rising hostilities. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
44 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Congress MP Randhawa slams J-K CM Omar Abdullah over remarks on Indus waters
Chandigarh (Punjab) [India], June 21 (ANI): Congress MP Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa strongly rebuked Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah for his opposition to a proposed 113-km canal to divert surplus water from the Indus river system to Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan, emphasising Punjab's historical and agricultural significance. He recalled the challenges Punjab faced during Operation Sindoor, asserting that there wasn't as much 'Pakistani attack in J&K as there was in Punjab.' Speaking in to ANI, Randhawa said, 'One should not make statements that cast doubt on patriotism. Punjabis have never done that. And even during Operation Sindoor, there wasn't as much Pakistani attack in J&K as there was in Punjab. Punjab was turned into a battlefield. The patriotism of Punjab, the strength of Punjab, and the strength of its agriculture -- as long as Punjab remains strong, India remains strong.' Randhawa said he was 'sad' and 'hurt' by the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister's recent comments. 'I don't know in what context Mr. Abdullah made his statement, but I'm sad. Considering the relationships his grandfather, father, and himself have had with Punjabis and with Punjab, and the faith his father and grandfather had in Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple), I am hurt by his statement.' He directly replied to CM Abdullah's remarks: 'Punjab should be given water because when India gained Independence, we used to beg to the world for (food) grain.' The Congress MP underscored the historic significance of Punjab's irrigation system, recalling the legacy of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. 'It is because of this water, and the three dams built there, and if they have even a little knowledge of history, they would know that the best canal system existed during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time. From Khyber Pass, where the Mughals used to enter and loot India, Maharaja Ranjit Singh blocked that route and stopped the Mughals from entering, turning the country into a capable and independent state. He ruled over Jammu & Kashmir for over 40 years.' He stated that Punjab's border regions, including areas right up to the no-man's-land where farming continues today, are not only symbols of the state's resilience but crucial contributors to national food supplies. 'That water is Punjab's lifeline,' he said. Randhawa's remarks come in response to CM Abdullah's June 20 statement in Jammu, where he rejected the canal, citing Jammu's drought-like conditions and questioning Punjab's past support asking 'Did they give us water when we needed it?' (ANI)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Congress MP Randhawa slams J&K CM Omar Abdullah over remarks on Indus waters
Congress MP Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa strongly rebuked Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah for his opposition to a proposed 113-km canal to divert surplus water from the Indus river system to Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan, emphasising Punjab's historical and agricultural significance. He recalled the challenges Punjab faced during Operation Sindoor , asserting that there wasn't as much "Pakistattack in J&K as there was in Punjab." Speaking in to ANI, Randhawa said, "One should not make statements that cast doubt on patriotism. Punjabis have never done that. And even during Operation Sindoor, there wasn't as much Pakistani attack in J&K as there was in Punjab. Punjab was turned into a battlefield. The patriotism of Punjab, the strength of Punjab, and the strength of its agriculture -- as long as Punjab remains strong, India remains strong." Randhawa said he was "sad" and "hurt" by the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister's recent comments. "I don't know in what context Mr. Abdullah made his statement, but I'm sad. Considering the relationships his grandfather, father, and himself have had with Punjabis and with Punjab, and the faith his father and grandfather had in Darbar Sahib (Golden Temple), I am hurt by his statement." Live Events He directly replied to CM Abdullah's remarks: "Punjab should be given water because when India gained Independence, we used to beg to the world for (food) grain." The Congress MP underscored the historic significance of Punjab's irrigation system, recalling the legacy of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. "It is because of this water, and the three dams built there, and if they have even a little knowledge of history, they would know that the best canal system existed during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time. From Khyber Pass, where the Mughals used to enter and loot India, Maharaja Ranjit Singh blocked that route and stopped the Mughals from entering, turning the country into a capable and independent state. He ruled over Jammu & Kashmir for over 40 years." He stated that Punjab's border regions, including areas right up to the no-man's-land where farming continues today, are not only symbols of the state's resilience but crucial contributors to national food supplies. "That water is Punjab's lifeline," he said. Randhawa's remarks come in response to CM Abdullah's June 20 statement in Jammu, where he rejected the canal, citing Jammu's drought-like conditions and questioning Punjab's past support asking "Did they give us water when we needed it?" Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Invoking anti-gangster law to counter one communal violence incident triggered by a social media post is misuse: SC
The Supreme Court has concluded that the use of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act — a law meant to counter organised crime — in a solitary case of communal disturbance caused by an 'incendiary' social media post, amounts to a misuse of the stringent penal law. The recent judgment, authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta, came after the court heard an appeal filed by people accused under the State law for mobbing and vandalising the business establishment of a man who posted content derogatory to a particular religion on social media. 'When juxtaposed with the object and intent of the U.P. Gangsters Act, which was enacted to combat organised gang-based crime and dismantle criminal syndicates that pose a persistent threat to public order, the application of the Act to the appellants based on a single incident of communal violence flaring up from an incendiary post made against a particular religion represents a significant departure from its legislative purpose,' Justice Mehta wrote. 'Colourable exercise of power' The judgment said the application of the Gangsters Act in the current case bore the 'hallmark of colourable exercise of power for purposes extraneous to the Act's legitimate objectives'. The court reminded the State government of Article 21 of the Constitution that 'no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'. Justice Mehta observed that the procedure prescribed by law must be fair, just, reasonable, and not arbitrary, presumptive, or oppressive. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty acquired even greater significance when an 'extraordinary legislation with stringent provisions' like the U.P. Gangsters Act was invoked by the State, he said. 'The power conferred upon the State cannot be wielded as an instrument of harassment or intimidation, particularly where political motivations may be at play,' Justice Mehta emphasised. 'Need solid evidence' Extraordinary penal provisions, particularly those that substantially abridge regular procedural safeguards like the U.P. Gangsters Act, must be invoked only if the evidence met a threshold of credibility and substantiality. 'The materials relied upon must establish a reasonable nexus between the accused and the alleged criminal activity… When a statute creates serious fetters on personal liberty, the evidentiary foundation for its invocation must be commensurately strong, supported by concrete, verifiable facts rather than vague assertions,' the top court held. Quashing the FIR and allowing the appeal, the court said the case failed to meet the 'essential threshold' required to invoke the Gangsters Act. It had rested 'largely on presumptive theories rather than presenting tangible material to establish the probability that the appellants were engaged in organised criminal activity,' the court said.
