SRINAGAR — Petitioners, who had petitioned against the abrogation of Article 370, are mulling to file a review petition in the Supreme Court.
On December 11 this month, the Supreme Court upheld the Government of India’s decision to scrap the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
People’s Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) and senior CPIM leader Muhammad Yousuf Tarigami told the news agency KNT that all the petitioners and those who backed them are in discussion and hopefully, a review petition will be lodged in the Supreme Court against its recent verdict.
In response to a question, Tarigami said, “It’s not only about the PAGD leaders but also about those who were petitioners and who had petitioned against the Centre’s action. Everything is being evaluated and hopefully, a review petition will be filed in the apex court,” he said.
“We are seeking justice and want the apex court to reconsider its decision. The abrogation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir was an assault on the people of the region,” he said.
Tarigami said that after discussing the matter with legal luminaries, it was felt that there is room for a review petition before the apex court.
People can differ but judgment was unanimous: Justice SK Kaul
The unanimous judgment on Kashmir was the opinion of five judges and people can differ, Justice (Retd) SK Kaul, who was part of the constitution bench that delivered the verdict, has said.
While talking to a media outlet, he said, “I believe that if five judges have taken a unanimous decision, then at least it is the opinion of these judges that what was done was correct and in accordance with the law.”
The verdict of the five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud earlier this month, had disappointed in Kashmir Valley.
Speaking about the issue, which he insisted deserved to be put to rest, Justice Kaul, who retired on December 25, said the issues which came before the bench could be broadly divided into two questions — whether Article 370 was a temporary provision and whether the Centre had stuck to the correct legal procedure.
Whether the “shell” of the “slightly different procedure” used to assimilate Jammu and Kashmir to India should stay or go was a political decision, Justice Kaul said. Now the decision for full assimilation has been taken, it was the “correct legal position,” he said.
“On the question of process, the court took its call looking at the ground reality — that there was no state assembly at the time and the power rested with the Centre. The people are entitled to a different opinion of it, so what,” he said.
On whether it was a temporary position, all five judges had agreed it was, going by the incorporation and the chapter where it was made.
Asked how he felt about the situation since he felt the pain of Kashmiri Pandits — the judge is from the erstwhile state — he said it was essential to acknowledge that “there is something wrong”.
Citing the South African model, based not on retribution or revenge but an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a system of apology, he said it was what people needed to move on.
“There is a legal aspect and a societal aspect. There should be an end to this conflict. 4.5 lakh people were compelled to migrate. Their story was never told. If we have to proceed further, it is necessary to acknowledge there is something wrong. A person who has felt the pain 30 years ago, should feel that someone recognises their pain,” Justice Kaul said.
On December 11, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, upheld the Centre’s decision to scrap the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.