PoliticsLaw

Centre assures Supreme Court that it will not touch special provisions of North-Eastern states

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there is a need to understand the difference between the "temporary provision" of Article 370 and the special provisions for North-Eastern states

The Central government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that it does not intend to touch the special provisions in the constitution made for the North-Eastern states in India. The submission was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Central Government in the matter challenging the abrogation of Article 370.

SG Tushar Mehta justified the abrogation of Article 370 by saying that the provision was of a temporary nature and was not meant to be in place permanently. “We must understand the difference between a temporary provision such as Article 370 and special provisions which is applicable to the North East. The Central government has no intention to touch the special provisions. This will have serious repercussions. There is no apprehension and there is no need to create apprehension, Mehta submitted.

Mehta made the submission in response to arguments by advocate Manish Tiwari, who appeared for an applicant in an Interlocutory Application (IA). Manish Tiwari had hinted that he would be addressing the Court on the implications of the move on the prospects of States in the North-East but SG Mehta interjected him before to assure that there are no plans to interfere with special status conferred on North-Eastern States.

Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud who is heading the constitutional bench, hearing the matter said, Why should we go into apprehensions at all? When Centre has (said it has) no such intention, why should we apprehend this at all? Apprehensions are allayed by the statement of the Central government.”

The Court then proceeded to dispose of IA in which it said, “Solicitor General Mehta has submitted on specific instructions of the Centre that it has no intention to affect any of the special provisions. Reference of this case is to Article 370 and thus there is no commonality of interest in the IA and the case being heard. In any event, SG statement allays apprehension in this regard. This stands disposed off,the Court recorded in its order.

Please, also have a look into : Government reduces AFSPA in parts of Assam, Manipur and Nagaland, extends it in Arunachal Pradesh

Related Articles

Back to top button