Today, On 23rd September, Supreme Court has declined to hear the Panun Kashmir Trust petition seeking equal age relaxation for displaced Kashmiri Hindus. The plea aimed to provide parity in recruitment benefits for Group C and D Central Government jobs.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition from Panun Kashmir Trust requesting equal age relaxation benefits in recruitment for Group C and D Central Government positions for displaced Kashmiri Hindus.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petition contends that while victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots have received such relaxations, Kashmiri Hindus are not afforded similar affirmative measures.
In 2022, the Supreme Court also dismissed a petition that sought directions for the Union of India to rehabilitate and resettle Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs who fled Kashmir following the 1990 exodus, as well as to identify those responsible for the violence against them.
The Court advised the petitioners to first approach the Union of India.
The petition claimed that the inaction and silence of the police and government during that time led to the brutal killings of Hindus and Sikhs, forcing them to flee Kashmir and allowing perpetrators to seize their properties as they wished.
Notably, former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in a separate but concurring judgment supporting the abrogation of Article 370 in 2023, recommended establishing a commission to investigate and report on human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir since the 1980s.
Given the matter’s significance and sensitivity, the Supreme Court stated that it is up to the Government to determine how to establish this commission and find the best way forward.
The judge cautioned,
“As a word of caution, the Commission, once constituted, should not turn into a criminal court and must instead follow a humanized and personalized process enabling people to share what they have been through uninhibitedly. It should be based on dialogue, allowing for different viewpoints and inputs from all sides.”
In December 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation of Article 370, which granted “special status” to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court ruled that Article 370 is a temporary provision enacted to serve a transitional purpose in light of the conflict in the region.
A textual interpretation of the article also indicates its temporary nature, as noted by the Chief Justice in his judgment.
Currently, the Supreme Court is also addressing the issue of restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood in a timely manner.
While affirming the abrogation of Article 370, the top court ordered, “Restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible.”
The Court relied on Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s statement that statehood for Jammu and Kashmir will be restored, excluding the Union Territory of Ladakh. Based on this statement, the Court found it unnecessary to determine the legality of reorganizing Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
Case Title: PANUN KASHMIR TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
