NEW DELHI: Four years after India-held Kashmir’s special status was controversially annulled by the Modi government, the constitution bench of India’s Supreme Court set a roadmap on Monday to hear on a day-to-day basis petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370.

A host of petitions are pending before the court following the reading down of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on Aug 5, 2019. The article granted special status to the region.

The bench made it clear that the hearings will be held on a day-to-day basis from Aug 2.

Political parties in Inida-held Jammu and Kashmir welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the petitions on a day-to-day basis.

National Conference leader Omar Abdullah said he was confident that there is a strong case in favour of the restoration of Article 370. “It took four years for the case to get to the Supreme Court. It shows how strong our case is. Had it been weak, believe me, they [the Centre] would have started the hearing within weeks. It took so long because the constitution was blown to pieces on Aug 5, 2019,” the former chief minister told reporters.

Mr Abdullah said the abrogation of Article 370 may be linked to tourism and G20 events, but the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status was wrong.

People’s Democratic Party Chief Mehbooba Mufti said the top court’s decision not to rely on the Centre’s affidavit on the abrogation of Article 370 vindicated her stand that the BJP-led union government’s move did not have a logical explanation.

The bench agreed to the deletion of names of two petitioners, Shah Faesal and Shehla Rashid, as they had sought permission to withdraw their petitions.

The bench took note of the serious misgivings expressed by the petitioners’ counsel regarding a fresh affidavit filed by the Modi government on Monday, claiming return of normalcy, and “unprecedented stability and progress” to the two union territories after the reading down of Article 370.

The need for a fresh affidavit was especially questioned by Justice Kaul, who joined the hearing from his residence. He suggested that the fresh affidavit would mean giving more time to the petitioners to respond to it, and this would result in diversion of precious time for hearing the main issue, that is constitutionality of the move to read down Article 370.

He was of the view that the debate on whether the case should be referred to a seven-judge bench had resulted in some avoidable diversion earlier. In 2020, when the case was heard first, the bench had decided that there was no need to refer it to a seven-judge bench, and the plea for reference, based on a perceived conflict between two previous judgements on the interpretation of Article 370, was erroneous, The Wire said.

Sensing the mood, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also promised not to rely on the government’s affidavit during the submissions, even though he suggested that the petitioners need not respond to it.

When Dushyant Dave, a senior advocate appearing for the petitioners, suggested that the media had already reported the contents of the central government’s fresh affidavit, and that the petitioners should get an opportunity to respond to it, the bench responded saying it could not control the media.

Published in Dawn, July 12th, 2023