Supreme Court To Hear Petitions On Restoring Jammu & Kashmir Statehood OnThursday
As per the causelist published on the website of the apex court, a Bench of CJI BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran will take up the matter for hearing on August 14 a day before Independence Day.
Last week, CJI Gavai agreed to retain the pleas for hearing on board after it was mentioned by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan.
One of the miscellaneous applications, filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik, contended that the continued delay in restoring statehood is "gravely affecting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and also violating the idea of federalism".
The applicants argued that the failure to restore statehood within a time-bound framework amounts to a violation of federalism, which forms part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir.
In the course of the oral hearing, SG Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible".
It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state.
In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
37 minutes ago
- News18
Decoding RSS: Ten Key Tenets Of World's Largest Voluntary Movement
Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the RSS for its selfless contribution to nation-building from the ramparts of the Red Fort during his Independence Day speech It is very difficult to understand the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) but very easy to misunderstand it. This is what can be said about the largest voluntary movement in the world that is completing 100 years on this year's Vijayadashami. That is also the reason for a political debate that has started after Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the RSS for its selfless contribution to nation-building from the ramparts of the Red Fort during his Independence Day speech. Let us take a look at 10 key tenets that are key to understanding the RSS: First, RSS is not an organisation in society, but it is organising society. So, it can't be looked at from the traditional or any other existing lens of analysing non-governmental organisations or, in fact, any other organisation. Second, RSS's only work is to create people with strong character who are committed to the service of the society and nation. Whatever work is done, it is done by the RSS volunteers known as 'swayamsevaks". And as they work closely with society in different fields, the credit for any change or betterment goes to society itself. Thus, neither the RSS nor its volunteers seek recognition for any achievements. Third, the objective of the RSS is to transform society. This 'transformation" would be achieved, according to the RSS, when every individual would get an opportunity to realise their full potential. Fourth, when this objective is achieved, the RSS should just merge with the whole society and vanish. And when history is recorded, no credit should be given to the RSS, as it is the society that has transformed itself. Fifth, the RSS believes in a holistic perspective and not a binary vision. It doesn't believe in the fragmented vision of 'majority vs minority" or 'left vs right". For the RSS, all Bharatiyas are part of one nation. Sixth, when the RSS talks about Hindu unity, it doesn't associate the word 'Hindu" with a religion or a way of worship. For the RSS, the word 'Hindu" denotes all those who consider Bharat to be their motherland and are committed to serving her. An individual going to the mosque or a church or even an atheist is as much a 'Hindu" for the RSS as an individual going to the temple if he or she is ready to live and die for Bharat. Seventh, the RSS believes that the concept of 'secularism" was picked up from the West and imposed on India in the post-Independence era by politicians and intellectuals who were not rooted in the cultural ethos of Bharat. The concept of 'secularism" as it is applied today was a typical Christian response to intra-Christianity wars and the dominance of the Church in Europe. The Christian wars in the 16th and 17th centuries had ravaged Europe, as the Church was intertwined with the State in such a manner that one couldn't segregate the two. The French Revolution laid down the foundation for the principle of laïcité—the separation of religion and the State. In 1905, France formally codified it as a law. The rest of Europe broadly followed this principle. Indian intellectuals and politicians who were in awe of 'Western liberalism" or 'Marxism" picked up this idea and thrust it upon India. In the Indian civilisational construct dating back several millennia, religion never dominated the State because we were ruled by the concept of 'dharma"—a set of eternal values that has nothing to do with any particular way of worship. Eighth, the RSS associates 'religion" with a way of worship and 'dharma" with a set of eternal values that have been driving Bharat's civilisational journey since the beginning. This set of eternal values is 'Hindu Dharma". So, when the RSS talks about the concept of 'Hindu Rashtra", it implies a nation that is constantly guided by 'dharma", not by any 'religion". Ninth, the RSS believes that we as a 'nation" are different from the modern 'nation-states". Our idea of nationalism is different from the West's idea of nationalism. Noted historian David Sasson, who earned his PhD under Eric Hobsbawm, one of the foremost authorities on Western nationalism, observed in his introduction to a collection of essays and lectures by Hobsbawm, 'On Nationalism", 'In Europe, nationalism was the product of the 'dual revolutions', the French Revolution and the British Industrial Revolution. The rise of the 'White man's nationalism' in Europe resulted in colonisation of large parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, civil wars within the Western nation-states, countless military conflicts between nations, at least two world wars and ethnic cleansing of minorities in the Western countries by the dominant political powers who had captured the power riding on the wave of 'nationalism'. That is why significant sections of the society as well as the academia, media and intelligentsia in the West are wary of 'nationalism'. In the West, utterance of the word 'nationalism' brings back memories of loot, plunder, bloody wars and a quest for material wealth and military superiority. 'Hindu Nationalism' is quite different from European or Western Nationalism. The trajectory of European nationalism and Hindu nationalism are altogether different. Radha Kumud Mookerji, known for his monumental work on history and culture of India. has explained the difference in his seminal work Nationalism in Hindu Culture published in 1921. According to Mookerji, it is a mistake readily to assume that the origin of that remarkable social phenomenon of nationalism is to be found in the West; that it is a genuinely Western product imported into the Eastern countries long after their growth and development; that the Eastern mind was completely a stranger to the very conception of the mother country, a sense of natural attachment to her, and a corresponding sense of duties and obligations which the children of the soil owe to her. Such misconceptions are due to a colossal ignorance of the culture of the East. Even in the dim and distant age of remote antiquity, unillumined by the light of historical knowledge, we find the underlying principles of nationalism chanted forth in the hymns of the Rig Veda embodying the very first utterance of humanity itself. That book, one of the oldest literary records of humanity, reveals conscious and fervent attempts made by the Rishis (seers), those profoundly wise organisers of Hindu polity and culture, to visualise the unity of their mother-country, nay, to transfigure the mother earth into a living deity and enshrine her in the loving heart of the worshipper." Tenth, and the most interesting tenet of the RSS philosophy, is that there are two kinds of people in our society—those who have joined the RSS and those who would ultimately join it. That is why the RSS doesn't respond to even its most vicious critiques, and history has been a witness—there is no dearth of RSS-baiters who later became the most committed swayamsevaks. The writer is an author and columnist. His X handle is @ArunAnandLive. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. tags : hindu Narendra Modi rss view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 20, 2025, 04:29 IST News opinion Right Word | Decoding RSS: Ten Key Tenets Of World's Largest Voluntary Movement Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Loading comments...
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Will give view on Prez reference; won't decide validity of TN guv verdict': Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India NEW DELHI: Keeping aside objections of Kerala and Tamil Nadu govts on the maintainability of the Presidential reference, Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would give its opinion on the President's 14 queries if it finds these raising important questions of law on SC's power to fix timelines for her and governors in granting, withholding or refusing assent to bills passed by assemblies. After hearing senior advocates K K Venugopal for Kerala and A M Singhvi for TN, a five-judge bench of CJI B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked, "Are you really serious in raising preliminary objections?" CJI said, "We are not deciding the validity of the (April 8) Tamil Nadu judgment (regarding its governor's role on bills). We are only deciding Presidential reference and will be giving an advisory opinion." Kant said, "We will first decide whether a question of law of public importance has been raised in the reference." Opinion given by a Constitution bench of SC is binding on all, Mehta tells court Singhvi said SC cannot overturn the two-judge bench's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu case through an advisory opinion and that if the opinion expresses a view contrary to that expressed in the Tamil Nadu case, then there would be two sets of constitutional laws - one for TN on the governor's role on bills and the opinion applicable to all other states. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta cited a few judgments to argue that the opinion given by a Constitution bench of SC is binding on all and can even overturn views expressed by a bench on similar issues. Both AG R Venkataramani and Mehta, supported by senior advocates Harish N Salve, N K Kaul and Maninder Singh, argued in support of the Presidential reference and said in the light of the two-judge bench's judgment, but without referring to the facts of that case, the President felt an authoritative pronouncement from SC was needed given that there had been a series of disjointed pronouncements on the core issue. Venkatramani's arguments outlined the Centre's unease over SC, through its April 8 judgment, foraying into the legislative domain and amending constitutional provisions on the roles of governors (Article 200) and the President (Article 201) in relation to their power to give or deny assent to bills passed by legislatures, and said the two-judge bench should have referred the constitutional issues to a five-judge bench as mandated by Article 145(3) of the Constitution and not ventured to decide them. By prescribing timelines, "SC looked upon the President as an ordinary statutory authority and asked her to give assent to a bill within a specified time without examining whether the bill is unconstitutional, against the national policy framed by the Union govt or against the national interest," the AG said. Venkataramani also faulted SC using its exclusive powers under Article 142 to mandate the President to seek advisory opinion of the court under Article 143 whenever she had doubts about constitutionality of a bill. "SC robbed the highest constitutional authority of the power to think, and decide the legality or constitutionality of a bill," he said, adding that another unthinkable part of the SC judgment was the use of Article 142 powers to grant 'deemed assent' to bills. Without referring to facts of the case where the TN governor had long delayed granting assent to bills, the bench asked the AG, "If the facts of a case on egregious delay (on the governor's part) comes for adjudication before a constitution bench of SC, can you suggest what should be the court's approach?" The AG said even if a constitution bench can examine the issues, under no circumstance could the court either amend the Constitution or assume the role constitutionally assigned to the governor to grant "deemed assent" to bills. "If this is permissible, then for every small mistake or delay, the states would approach SC for grant of deemed assent." Mehta supplemented the AG's arguments and said the CJI-led five-judge bench could keep the TN facts aside and give an ideal interpretation of Articles 200 and 201. "Some mistakes committed by a governor or a minister or anyone in a given case should not be the guiding factor for interpreting constitutional provisions," he said. The SG will continue his arguments on Wednesday.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Love is not penal': SC on minor couples in genuine romantic relationships
'Love is not penal, and it cannot become one,' the Supreme Court asserted on Tuesday, underlining that young couples, even those just short of attaining majority, must be 'left alone' if they have entered into genuine romantic relationships. The Supreme Court bench noted that there is a distinction between exploitative criminal conduct and 'romantic bonds' between teenagers. (HT Photo) A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the remarks while hearing a batch of petitions that sought guidelines to prevent misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in cases where minors engage in consensual relationships. During the proceedings, the court also dismissed petitions by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) challenging Punjab and Haryana high court orders that recognised the validity of marriages of Muslim girls after attaining puberty. The bench said the commissions had 'no locus standi' in such matters, remarking: 'It is strange that NCPCR, which is for protecting children, has challenged an order protecting two children…Leave these couples alone.' ALSO READ | Rape FIR under POCSO can't be quashed based on compromise or marriage: Punjab and Haryana HC Personal laws in Islam allow a Muslim girl to enter into a contract of marriage after attaining puberty whereas a set of common civil and criminal laws in India proscribes the marriage of girls under 18 and further makes sexual intercourse with minors a penal offence. With the dismissal, a January 2023 order of the top court that the high court ruling should not be treated as precedent also came to an end. During the Tuesday hearing, the bench noted that while POCSO remains a vital tool to protect children against sexual abuse, there is a distinction between exploitative criminal conduct and 'romantic bonds' between teenagers. 'Can you say it is criminal to love?' Justice Nagarathna asked, cautioning that prosecuting adolescents for consensual relationships inflicted lasting trauma. Appearing for petitioner NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA), senior advocate HS Phoolka pressed for safeguards to ensure that leniency in such cases is not abused, suggesting for instance that the age gap between minors in relationships be capped at three years. Phoolka also assailed a 2022 circular by the Tamil Nadu director general of Police directing the police officials to not show haste in effecting an arrest of the accused in consensual relationships, saying such mandates were prone to be misused and minors getting trafficked. But the bench was emphatic that investigators can look into the facts of each case. 'It has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Why do you want to prosecute everyone? Every case is different, and police have to investigate, apply their mind, and segregate genuine cases from those that should be prosecuted,' the court said. ALSO READ | Adolescence, consent & the grey zone for Pocso The bench highlighted the misuse of POCSO provisions by parents who file cases when daughters elope, often citing 'honour' as the pretext. 'Many such cases are filed by the girls' parents to so-called protect their honour. There will be honour killings if we start treating all such cases as crimes,' it warned. 'Look at the trauma when a boy has to be lodged in jail or face prosecution despite having a consensual relationship with a girl who is on the verge of attaining majority…We have to keep the realities of society in mind,' said the court. The bench also reflected on the social realities of adolescent life: 'Girls and boys study together, spend time together. They can develop feelings for each other and have romantic relationships. Where there are genuine romantic relationships; where they want to get married or want to be together…why should they be stopped?' The same bench also refused to entertain different petitions filed by NCPCR and the National Commission for Women (NCW), which had challenged separate high court orders on the issue. In one case, the bodies had assailed a Punjab and Haryana high court judgment, which held that Muslim girls are legally old enough to marry once they reach puberty at the age of 15; in another, the high court had handed custody of a minor girl to her adult husband following a habeas corpus plea. The bench said that NCPCR or NCW had no locus (legal standing) to interfere in these personal matters. 'NCPCR has no locus standi to challenge such orders,' the bench held. It further remarked: 'It is strange that the NCPCR, which is for protecting the children, has challenged an order protecting two children. How can we set aside protection orders of a high court? Leave these couples alone.' With the NCPCR's petitions getting disposed of on Tuesday, a January 2023 order by a previous bench of the Supreme Court that the Punjab and Haryana high court judgment shall not be treated as a legal precedent also ends. The court's observations come against the backdrop of multiple pending pleas, including those filed by BBA and NCPCR, that grapple with whether the statutory age of consent at 18 under POCSO should be revisited. Senior advocate Rajshekhar Rao assisted the court as amicus curiae. In separate proceedings, the Union government last month adduced its submissions in the top court, opposing any move to lower the age of consent under POCSO or introduce exceptions for adolescent relationships. As reported first by HT on July 24, the government told the court that such dilution, 'even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy,' would dismantle the statutory shield meant to safeguard minors and risk opening the door to child abuse. It added that the current threshold of 18 years must remain 'strictly and uniformly enforced' to maintain the integrity of child protection laws and uphold the best interests of minors. ALSO READ | Mutual acts of love between minor couple not sexual assault under POCSO, says HC HT's analysis of government data, presented as part of its written submissions, revealed a stark disparity between the number of juveniles and young adults charged under rape and child sexual abuse laws and the relatively small proportion who are eventually convicted, throwing focus on the ongoing debate over the age of consent and its unintended consequences. Between 2018 and 2022, only 468 juveniles aged 16-18 were convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, despite more than 4,900 being booked across the country in the same period , a conviction rate of just 9.55%. For charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, just 855 convictions were recorded out of 6,892 cases during the same period , a rate of only 12.4%. The corresponding numbers for young adults aged 18-22 tell a similar story. While 52,471 were arrested under these stringent laws during this period, only 6,093 were convicted under POCSO, a conviction rate of just 11.61%. Of 24,306 arrested between 2018 and 2022 for rape, only 2,585 young adults were convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, amounting to just 10.63%.
