The Abrogation-Reorganisation Cases will be heard next by the five-judge Constitution Bench set headed by Justice NV Ramana on 14 November after the Centre requested four weeks’ time to respond to all petitions.

The Restrictions Cases will be heard next on 16 October, with the Centre to respond to most of them till then. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has already submitted a counter-affidavit against Anuradha Bhasin’s petition.

The Restrictions Cases will be heard next on 16 October, with the Centre to respond to most of them till then. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has already submitted a counter-affidavit against Anuradha Bhasin’s petition.

The Detention Cases will be heard after two more weeks or so as well, after some desperate haggling by lawyers for the detained persons, on the basis of the court’s previous orders keeping certain cases open, and the hardship they would cause if they were not heard.

The Detention Cases will be heard after two more weeks or so as well, after some desperate haggling by lawyers for the detained persons, on the basis of the court’s previous orders keeping certain cases open, and the hardship they would cause if they were not heard.

Justice Ramana is also heading the three-judge Bench hearing the Restrictions Cases and the Detention Cases, after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi transferred all the cases to him on Monday, 30 September. Unfortunately, the files were sent to his and the other two judges’ offices only at around 9 pm on Monday, a member of the court staff informed The Quint .

Which, of course, is the date when the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 – the Act of the Parliament which makes the bifurcation and downgrading happen – comes into force.

The lawyers for the petitioners tried to point out that if the court did eventually find that the reorganisation was unconstitutional, implementing this would be much more difficult if the Reorganisation Act had already come into force. To avoid unnecessary financial and administrative hurdles, they requested the court to consider some sort of stay on the operation of the Reorganisation Act till the court had decided the case one way or another. One of them suggested something similar to the way the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh had been dealt with a few years ago. These concerns were brushed aside by the judges, who insisted that the Reorganisation Act could be rolled back if they ruled against it.

One of the key problems with Restrictions Cases and Detention Cases has been that we are not being shown that these checks and balances have in fact been adhered to. Forget the general public, even the court is not being provided with the details of how these checks and balances are satisfied.

Take for instance, the case of Farooq Abdullah’s detention since 4-5 August. Tamil Nadu politician Vaiko, a friend of Abdullah’s, filed a habeas corpus petition on his behalf on 11 September. The day before the petition was set to be heard, on 16 September, the authorities passed a preventive detention order against Abdullah under the Public Safety Act (PSA). Because of this, the Supreme Court on Monday, 30 September, dismissed Vaiko’s petition, saying there was now a lawful basis for Abdullah’s detention. The problem is that the government had not produced any basis for Abdullah’s house arrest from the night of 4-5 August till 16 September, and now the legality of his detention during that time is no longer being looked into. In fact, the government does not even seem to have formally submitted the detention order under the PSA against Abdullah to the apex court – how exactly did the Supreme Court dismiss the case if so?

Deciding by NOT Deciding: Takeaways From SC’s Kashmir Hearings

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 1 October, conducted hearings on various cases relating to Jammu & Kashmir but continues to avoid any sort of urgency in hearing them, creating a curious situation where a decision of sorts is being made in each without any actual decision being made.

There are three broad types of cases before the apex court:

The ‘Abrogation-Reorganisation’ Cases: 10 writ petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganisation of J&K into two Union Territories.
The ‘Restrictions’ Cases: Petitions challenging the restrictions imposed in J&K following the Modi-led government’s moves in the region since 5 August – including those by Kashmir Times’ Executive Editor Anuradha Bhasin, child rights activist Enakshi Gnaguly, and Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad.
The ‘Detention’ Cases: Habeas corpus petitions filed challenging the detention of various people – including those filed by Sitaram Yechury for his colleague MY Tarigami, and by business leader Mubeen Shah’s wife on his behalf.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Constitution Supreme Court Jammu and Kashmir

Published: 01 Oct 2019, 9:45 PM IST

BECOME A MEMBER

Deciding by NOT Deciding: Takeaways From SC’s Kashmir Hearings

An example is how reorganisation of J&K takes effect on 31 October, but challenge will only be heard on 14 November.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and law

Topics: Constitution Supreme Court Jammu and Kashmir