Today(on 9th July), The Supreme Court closed proceedings on a PIL alleging non-functional statutory panels in Jammu and Kashmir, following assurances from the Union Territory administration that these panels are now operational. The PIL, filed by lawyer Asim Suhas Sarode, had raised concerns about the status of these panels after the abrogation of Article 370.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 9th July), The Supreme Court concluded the proceedings on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which alleged that several statutory panels in Jammu and Kashmir were non-functional. The closure came after the union territory administration informed the court that these panels are now operational, with some of their powers being exercised by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
Previously, the Supreme Court had issued notices to the Centre regarding the 2020 PIL filed by Pune-based lawyer Asim Suhas Sarode. The court had sought the assistance of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in resolving the matter. The PIL contended that statutory panels, including the State Human Rights Commission, were not functional in the union territory following the abrogation of Article 370, which had granted special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The PIL specifically alleged that seven panels, including the Jammu and Kashmir State Commission for Women, the State Commission for Persons with Disabilities, and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, were non-functional.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Pardiwala took note of the submissions made by the Solicitor General.
ALSO READ: Article 370: Respondents’ Perspective on J&K’s Residuary Power
The solicitor general stated-
“The statutory panels are operational, with some of their powers now vested in central panels following the change in status of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir.”
He further explained-
“Three out of the seven commissions’ powers are now exercised by central panels, while the remaining are functional within the union territory.”
This clarification from the union territory administration effectively addressed the concerns raised in the PIL, leading to the closure of the proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the transition and integration process following the abrogation of Article 370, ensuring that statutory functions continue without disruption in Jammu and Kashmir.
In the backdrop of this case, the abrogation of Article 370 has been a significant political and administrative change for Jammu and Kashmir. The reorganization of the state into a union territory necessitated a reevaluation of various statutory bodies and their functions. The Supreme Court’s involvement highlights the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the functionality of essential governance structures during such transitions.
As the situation in Jammu and Kashmir continues to evolve, the functioning of statutory panels remains a crucial aspect of ensuring governance and rights protection in the region. The integration of certain functions into central panels demonstrates an effort to maintain continuity and uphold the administrative responsibilities previously managed by the state-level bodies.
This resolution by the Supreme Court brings clarity to the operational status of these panels and reinforces the legal and administrative framework supporting Jammu and Kashmir’s governance under its new status as a union territory. The assurance that these panels are functional is a significant step towards stabilizing and normalizing the region’s governance mechanisms post-Article 370 abrogation.
The Supreme Court of India addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to the legislative changes in Jammu and Kashmir. The court’s decision brings clarity to the legal landscape following the region’s reorganization and the abrogation of Article 370.
The bench, while considering the submissions, referenced an affidavit from the law, justice, and parliamentary affairs department of Jammu and Kashmir. The affidavit highlighted the legislative changes brought about by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill. This Bill has made laws applicable to Union Territories (UTs) now applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, aligning its legal framework with that of other UTs in India.
The bench remarked-
“We will close the case,”
indicating the court’s inclination to conclude the matter based on the current legal context.
The bench further elaborated, stating-
“It has been stated that following the passage of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, laws applicable to Union Territories now apply to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir… furthermore, the central government has the authority to direct central commissions to operate as state commissions.”
Given these substantial changes, the court decided to dispose of the PIL, noting that-
“Given the current circumstances, the plea has become moot, and no further directions need to be issued.” This decision reflects the court’s recognition of the extensive legislative changes that have rendered the PIL irrelevant.
The PIL had initially involved multiple parties, including the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the National Human Rights Commission, and the Law Commission of India. These entities were implicated in the plea due to their roles in the administrative and legal framework governing Jammu and Kashmir.
This legal journey began in August 2019, when the Central Government took a historic step by bifurcating Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. This move also involved the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which had previously granted special status to the erstwhile state. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on August 5, 2019, and was passed the same day. The Lok Sabha gave its nod to the Bill the following day, cementing the legislative changes.
The reorganization has brought the region under the same legal provisions as other Union Territories, and the central government now holds the authority to direct central commissions to operate as state commissions within the union territory.
