Wouldn’t touch special provisions applicable to north-east: Centre tells SC on Article 370 case
Centre on Article 370 case: The Central Government made it clear to the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has no intention of interfering with the special provisions in the Constitution that apply to the country's northeastern states.
"We must understand the difference between a temporary provision such as Article 370 and special provisions which are applicable to the northeast (India). The Central government has no intention to touch any part that gives special provisions to the northeast and other regions. This will have serious repercussions. There is no apprehension and there is no need to create apprehension," Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta added.
The statement was made by Solicitor General, appearing for the Centre, during the hearing of the petitions challenging the repeal of Article 370, after senior advocate Manish Tiwari, representing a political party in Arunachal Pradesh, expressed concern about taking away the special provisions applicable to northeastern states in the same way that Jammu and Kashmir's special status was repealed.
Article 370, as well as provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371 and the 6th Schedule, provide for special provisions for northeastern states, Tiwari said.
Even a slight apprehension on India's periphery might have serious implications, according to Tiwari, who said that this court is currently dealing with one such scenario in Manipur.
Tiwari stated that Article 370, as well as provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371 and the 6th Schedule, provide for particular provisions for northeastern states.
According to Tiwari, even a slight apprehension on India's periphery might have serious implications.
“When as a constitutional principle the Solicitor General has informed us that the government has no such intention, why should we apprehend this at all? We should not enter that territory at all. The impact of abrogation - that point has been made. Let's not focus on northeast like this. The apprehensions are allayed by the statement of the Central government," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said.
The bench, which also included Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, subsequently disposed of the plea in which Tiwari appeared while recording the Solicitor General's statement that this court is currently dealing with one similar case in Manipur.
"Solicitor General Mehta has submitted on specific instructions of the Centre that it has no intention to affect any of the application of the special provisions in northeast and any part of the county. Reference of this case is to Article 370 and thus there is no commonality of interest in the IA and the case being heard," the bench said.
Meanwhile, petitioners challenging the repeal of Article 370 have finished their arguments, and the Centre will begin its contributions on Thursday.
During the hearing, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, who was representing one of the petitioners, claimed that the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir had no prior knowledge of the Centre's actions on August 4, 2019, citing a portion of his media interview.
The concurrence of the Government of J&K is required to abrogate Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370, according to a senior attorney, adding that there was no effective concurrence given by the Governor to abrogate Article 370.
The Constitution Bench is now hearing an array of petitions contesting the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution and the division of the state into two Union Territories.
On August 5, 2019, the Central government announced the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status under Article 370 and the division of the region into two Union territories.
- ANI
