India News

J&K: Supreme Court fixes Nov 14 for hearing petitions challenging Centre’s order as latter sits on reply

Supreme Court fixed November 14 to commence hearing petitions challenging the Constitutional validity Centre’s decision revoking the special status for Jammu and Kashmir.

Published

7 years ago

October 1, 2019

In what is certain to attract stinging criticism, the Centre choosing not to file any counter-affidavits so far to petitions challenging its decisions in Jammu and Kashmir became a ground for the Supreme Court to postpone the much awaited hearing by another month and half.

The Supreme Court today – Tuesday, Oct 1 – fixed Nov 14 to commence hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the amendment to Article 370 revoking the special status for Jammu and Kashmir.

The five-judge Constitution bench – the ‘Kashmir bench – headed by Justice NV Ramana and also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R Subhash Reddy, Bhushan Gavai and Surya Kant also put an embargo on fresh petitions challenging the government’s decision.

The court refused the plea of petitioners that not more than two weeks be given to the Centre and J&K administration for filing counter-affidavits. It allowed Centre four weeks time to file counter-affidavits to the cases, and one week time for the petitioner to file a rejoinder.

The top court which is already seized of multiple petitions in the matter said it will not entertain any more petitions.

“We have to allow the Centre and the J&K administration to file counter-affidavit otherwise we can’t decide the matter,” the bench said.

On Monday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi transferred all petitions pending before it to the Constitution Bench headed by Justice NV Ramana. It was decided over a month ago, on August 28, to refer them to a larger bench.

The bench was constituted especially to hear matters related to Article 370 starting today.

Several pleas have been filed in the top court challenging the Centre’s August 5 decision abrogating provisions of Article 370 and bifurcating the state into Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The UTs will come into being on October 31.

The Presidential Order, according to the petitioners, used “a temporary situation meant to hold the field until the return of the elected government, to accomplish a fundamental, permanent, and irreversible alteration of the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir without the concurrence, consultation or recommendation of the people of that State, acting through their elected representatives”.

This, they said, amounted to an “overnight abrogation of the democratic rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people of the State… upon its accession”.

As decided by the CJI headed bench on Monday, the petitions challenging govt order changing J&K’s status would be heard by the Kashmir bench, while others relating to human rights etc due to lockdown were referred to a three-judge bench.

The petitions

The first petition in the apex court challenging the presidential order on Article 370 was filed by advocate ML Sharma on August 6.

Several others followed. These include pleas by Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of Kashmir Times newspaper; the habeas corpus petition by CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury questioning detention of party colleague Yusuf Tarigami; and Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad seeking permission to travel to J&K.

The National Conference (NC), the Sajjad Lone-led J&K Peoples Conference and CPI(M) leader Mohd Yousuf Tarigami also filed pleas in this regard in the top court.

The petition on behalf of NC was filed by Lok Sabha MPs Mohammad Akbar Lone and Justice (retd) Hasnain Masoodi. Lone is a former speaker of the J&K Assembly and Masoodi is a retired judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.

In 2015, Justice (retd) Masoodi had ruled that Article 370 was a permanent feature of the Constitution.

Other pleas include the one filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats. They have also sought directions declaring the presidential orders of August 5 “unconstitutional, void and inoperative”. The plea was filed by professor Radha Kumar, a former member of the Home Ministry’s Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir (2010-11), former IAS officer of J&K cadre Hindal Haidar Tyabji, Air Vice Marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, Major General (retd) Ashok Kumar Mehta, former Punjab-cadre IAS officer Amitabha Pande and former Kerala-cadre IAS officer Gopal Pillai, who retired as the Union home secretary in 2011.

A plea has also been filed by bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Faesal, along with his party colleague and former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) leader Shehla Rashid.

Petitions referred to three-judge bench

During the hearing on Monday, the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and also comprising Justices SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, said it has received a report from the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the allegations about illegal detention of minors in the Valley.

“The report has come. We will send this matter to the Kashmir bench (a three-judge bench headed by Justice Ramana),” the bench told the lawyer representing petitioners and child right activists Enakshi Ganguly and Shanta Sinha.

It also referred to the three-judge bench a separate plea filed by a doctor who claimed shortage of medical facilities in Kashmir due to the restrictions imposed there and also about restoration of internet facilities in the hospitals there.

The bench said that petition filed by Executive Editor of Kashmir Times Anuradha Bhasin, who has raised the issue of restrictions imposed on working of journalists in Kashmir following the abrogation of provisions of Article 370, would be heard by the three-judge bench.

It also referred the separate petitions, including those filed by CPI(M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury and senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad, to the three-judge bench.

While Yechury has filed a petition seeking permission to visit his party colleague Yousuf Tarigami in Kashmir, Azad has moved the top court in his personal capacity seeking its nod to visit his family members and relatives in Kashmir.

The apex court had earlier allowed Yechury to visit Kashmir to meet Tarigami while Azad was also permitted to visit four districts — Srinagar, Jammu, Baramulla, Anantnag — to meet people.

Petitions before the Constitution bench

Other pleas, which would be taken up for hearing by the Constitution bench, include the plea by advocate ML Sharma.

Another is one filed by a group of former defence officers and bureaucrats who have sought direction to declare the Presidential orders of August 5 “unconstitutional, void and inoperative”.

The plea was filed by professor Radha Kumar, a former member of the Home Ministry’s Group of Interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir (2010-11), former IAS officer of J&K cadre Hindal Haidar Tyabji, Air Vice Marshal (retd) Kapil Kak, Major General (retd) Ashok Kumar Mehta, former Punjab-cadre IAS officer Amitabha Pande and former Kerala-cadre IAS officer Gopal Pillai, who retired as the Union home secretary in 2011.

The NC leaders have submitted that the Presidential Orders paved the way for application of entire provisions of the Constitution in Jammu and Kashmir and also have the effect of nullifying Article 35A and completely abrogating Article 370.

They have contended that the Presidential Orders and the new legislation unconstitutionally undermine the scheme of Article 370.

Centre’s delay in filing counter-affidavits

While the Centre’s move came on Aug 5 and it is two months since the lockdown and communication blockade was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir, the Centre is yet to file its counter-affidavits in the bunch of petitions filed in the Supreme Court questioning its actions.

The first of these petitions was filed on Aug 6, the day after the Centre’s move.

The government’s measures – which were termed a ‘collective punishment on people’ by the United Nations Human rights body – have impacted the civil liberties of the people of J&K. It is unusual for such a long time to lapse before matters relating to constitutionally guaranteed rights are addressed.

Unfortunately, even after several weeks, no such explanation is forthcoming from the government.

Up Next

UP Police to Identify and Deport Bangladeshis, Other ‘Foreigners’, DGP OP Singh says ‘nothing to do with NRC’

Don't Miss

Jaishankar clarifies Modi’s Abki baar Trump Sarkaar remark, Rahul asks him to teach PM diplomacy

India News

Supreme Court questions EC over missing records in Sringeri election dispute

The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission over missing video footage of the 2023 counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri constituency. The case involves a revised result following a recount of postal ballots.

Published

7 hours ago

October 14, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Election Commission of India (ECI) over its inability to locate video recordings of the original vote counting in Karnataka’s Sringeri Assembly constituency in 2023. The court said it would not accept what it described as “lame excuses” and directed the poll body to produce whatever records are available at the next hearing.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva expressed displeasure after the Election Commission’s counsel informed it that the footage of the original counting could not be traced.

The bench also warned that it could draw an adverse inference if the required documents were not produced.

Questioning how the poll body could lose records relating to an election it had conducted, the judges stressed that maintaining election documentation was central to its responsibilities.

“How can the Election Commission of India say that it has lost the records? Your whole purpose is to hold an election, and you need to have a document. Where is the question of you saying we are trying to trace it?” the bench asked.

“We will not accept these kinds of lame excuses,” it added.

What is the Sringeri election dispute?

The case stems from the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election in Sringeri, where Congress leader TD Rajegowda was initially declared the winner.

The result was challenged by BJP candidate Jeevaraj before the Karnataka High Court. The High Court later ordered a recount of postal ballots, including the reverification of 279 rejected postal votes.

Following the recount, the Returning Officer declared a revised result in which Jeevaraj was declared the winner. Rajegowda then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the revised outcome.

In May, the Supreme Court granted interim relief to Rajegowda, directing that he continue as the Member of the Legislative Assembly while his plea remained pending.

Rajegowda seeks counting records and observer’s report

Rajegowda has sought access to the election observer’s report and video recordings of both the original counting conducted in 2023 and the recount held this year.

The missing original counting footage became a point of concern during Wednesday’s hearing, with the bench questioning the Election Commission’s inability to trace the recording.

The court directed the Commission to submit whatever records it possesses at the next hearing. Its warning about a possible adverse inference underscores the importance the bench attached to the production of the requested documents.

The court has scheduled the next hearing for February 15, 2027.

India News

Rahul Gandhi joins India Gate protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents

Rahul Gandhi joined the protest by Ankita Bhandari’s parents at India Gate in New Delhi on October 14. The demonstration has brought renewed attention to the 2022 murder case and the family’s concerns following Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor.

Published

8 hours ago

October 14, 2026

APNLive Desk

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi joined a protest by the parents of Ankita Bhandari at India Gate in New Delhi on Wednesday, October 14, bringing renewed attention to the 2022 murder case from Uttarakhand.

The family’s demonstration follows the appointment of Dushyant Gautam, a former BJP leader associated with the party’s Uttarakhand organisation, as Governor of Sikkim. The appointment has prompted objections from Ankita’s family and political leaders, who have raised concerns about the case and the demand for justice.

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra also met the family, according to reports.

Why Ankita Bhandari’s family is protesting

Ankita Bhandari, 19, worked as a receptionist at a resort in Uttarakhand. She was murdered in September 2022, and the case triggered widespread public anger and demands for accountability.

The protest has returned to the spotlight amid questions raised by the family and activists over the alleged role of a VIP in the case. These allegations and demands should be distinguished from findings established through the criminal proceedings.

Dushyant Gautam’s appointment as Sikkim Governor has become a fresh point of contention because his name has been linked to allegations surrounding the alleged VIP connection. Such allegations should not be treated as proof of involvement in the crime.

Political reactions and demand for justice

Rahul Gandhi’s participation brought the Congress leadership into the family’s latest protest in the national capital. The demonstration reflects continuing demands for accountability and further clarity over the concerns raised by the family.

The case has remained a subject of public and political debate, including questions about the investigation and the alleged VIP connection. The family’s concerns and the political reactions have renewed attention on the demand for justice for Ankita Bhandari.

India News

Meerut murder: Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla get death sentence

A Meerut court has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death in the blue drum murder case involving the killing of merchant navy officer Saurabh Rajput in March 2025.

Published

8 hours ago

October 14, 2026

APNLive Desk

A court in Meerut has sentenced Muskaan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla to death for the murder of Saurabh Rajput, Muskaan’s husband and a former Merchant Navy officer. The sentencing was pronounced on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, after the court convicted the two in the case widely known as the Meerut blue drum murder.

The case involved the killing of Rajput in March 2025 and the concealment of his dismembered remains inside a blue plastic drum sealed with cement and sand.

The two were convicted on September 30. The prosecution had sought the death penalty, arguing for the maximum punishment in the case.

Court verdict follows 126 hearings

The trial involved 126 hearings and statements from 22 prosecution witnesses. District Judge Arvind Kumar Mishra delivered the sentence after the court considered the evidence presented during the proceedings.

The investigation and prosecution relied on a combination of circumstantial, technical and physical evidence. This included forensic findings, witness testimony and material recovered during the investigation.

The case drew attention after police discovered Rajput’s remains inside the cement-filled drum at the couple’s residence in Meerut.

How Saurabh Rajput was killed

According to the prosecution’s account of the case, Rajput was killed in March 2025 after he returned to Meerut from London. Investigators alleged that Muskaan and Sahil had planned the murder.

The prosecution said Rajput was given food laced with sleeping medication before he was attacked. His body was subsequently dismembered, and the remains were placed inside a blue plastic drum.

The drum was filled with a mixture containing cement and sand and sealed. Investigators later recovered the remains from inside it.

Evidence presented during the investigation

Investigators built the case using several strands of evidence. Shopkeepers provided testimony about the purchase of materials, including a blue drum, cement, sand and cutting implements, before the murder.

Call detail records and mobile tower information were also cited to establish Sahil’s presence at the residence around the time of the crime. The prosecution further relied on post-mortem findings that confirmed Rajput had died from stab injuries.

The investigation also traced the movements of Muskaan and Sahil during their trip to Himachal Pradesh following the killing. Investigators said photographs and activity linked to Rajput’s phone were used to create the impression that he was still alive.

The case came to light in March 2025

The murder came to light after questions arose over Rajput’s whereabouts. According to the investigation, the couple’s attempt to move the heavy drum eventually raised suspicion.

Rajput’s family approached the police, leading to an investigation that uncovered the remains. Muskaan and Sahil were arrested in March 2025.

The sentencing on October 14 marks a major development in the case, which had proceeded from the discovery of Rajput’s remains to a trial involving dozens of witness statements and more than a hundred hearings.