Challenge to 370 scrap SC refuses interim order,defers hearing till Dec 10

Directs for compilation of all material; admits 2 new pleas

JAMMU: Refusing to pass any interim order on aspects related to Centre’s August 5 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday deferred the hearing on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the abrogation of the provisions of Article 370 till December 10.
A five-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana, said that there is a need for a compilation of all material in one place to conduct the hearing smoothly and directed all the parties to prepare and complete this compilation process on the next date of hearing.
The court which had earlier put an embargo on filing of any fresh writ petition challenging the abrogation, said it would hear two fresh pleas as they have raised important issues.
The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, directed the Centre to file a counter affidavit on or before November 22.
A batch of petitions—20 in number-- challenging various aspects of the abrogation of Article 370 was placed for hearing before the court on Thursday, six weeks after it had deferred the hearing after the Centre had sought time to file its counter affidavit.
When the matter came up for hearing today, the Bench expressed the need for one common compilation of all the documents of both sides to ensure that the hearing becomes easier.
Given that there are over 20-odd petitions in the case with two fresh petitions admitted by the Court today, the counsel told the Bench that some time would be required to prepare this compilation.
On the direction of the court, both sides nominated one counsel for the purpose of putting together a common compilation. The responsibility has been placed on Advocate S Prasanna for the petitioners, and Advocate Ankur Talwar for the Centre and J&K.
The top court also asked the Centre to respond to two fresh petitions which have raised issues related to abrogation of the provisions of Article 370. The court had earlier on October 1 put an embargo on filing of any fresh writ petition challenging the abrogation, but said today that it would hear these two pleas as they have raised important issues.
The court also directed the Centre to file a counter on or before November 22.
Meanwhile, senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Jammu and Kashmir People's Conference, requested the court to give the first priority for hearing the issue on aspects like bifurcation of services, division of assets and transfer of properties but the court said that it would hear the entire case.
“Passing any interim order might lead to delay in the matter and the apex court would settle all the issues at one go after hearing all the parties,” the bench said.
Several political parties including the National Conference (NC), the Sajjad Lone-led J&K Peoples Conference and CPI (M) leader Mohd Yousuf Tarigami have filed pleas challenging Centre's August 5 decision to abrogate Article 370.
The petition on behalf of NC was filed by Lok Sabha MPs Mohammad Akbar Lone and Justice (retd) Hasnain Masoodi. In 2015, Justice (retd) Masoodi had ruled that Article 370 was a permanent feature of the Constitution.
A plea was also filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats -- professor Radha Kumar, ex-member of Home Ministry's Group of Interlocutors for J&K (2010-11), former J&K cadre IAS officer Hindal Haidar Tyabji, Air Vice Marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, Major Gen. (retd) Ashok Kumar Mehta, ex-Punjab-cadre IAS officer Amitabha Pande and ex-Kerala-cadre IAS officer Gopal Pillai.
Besides, a plea has been filed by bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Faesal, along with his party colleague Shehla Rashid.
Last week, the Centre has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court, justifying the revocation of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir by saying that the power under Article 370(1)(d) of the Constitution could validly be exercised even after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of the erstwhile state.
The multiple petitions before the court have challenged the legal route adopted by the Centre, which includes the use of presidential powers.
The Centre contested it by contending that the power to amend Article 370, represents an important part of the constitutional setup wherein the framers of the constitution, realizing the importance of a united Union, reserved such powers to the Parliament.
"In this regard, it is submitted that the powers of the Union Parliament, with regard to the nature of powers under Article 3 i.e. alteration of state boundaries, bifurcation, new States, etc, is very wide in nature", said the affidavit claiming the assertions of the petitioners were "untenable".
Meanwhile, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Thursday told the Supreme court that there was no need for imposing Section 144 CrPC in Jammu and Kashmir and ban Internet and landlines.
His submission came while a three-judge bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the restrictions when the government revoked Article 370 granting special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers the authority to issue an order to prohibit the assembly of four or more people in an area.
The curbs had been imposed on August 4, a day ahead of the Central government moving a resolution in Parliament to scrap special status of Jammu and Kashmir granted under Article 370.
Sibal, appearing on behalf of Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, asked whether under Section 144 "one can direct that no one shall speak".
He emphasised that everyone has the right to speak with his family members.
Stressing that false news has to be monitored, he said there was no explanation for blocking landlines, the internet and post-paid mobiles.
He also pointed out that postpaid subscribers have had to pay fixed charges for the month of August and September when they didn't use the phone.
"They (the administration) never thought of any of this and took a decision to impose 144 CrPC", he said, adding cross-border terrorism is not something new and has not started on August 4.
Sibal also highlighted that a large number of people of Kashmir are peace-loving and that there is a need to protect their fundamental rights. The administration should have taken preventive measures to ensure that children could go to school.