<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would consider a plea for early listing of submissions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 which had given special status to <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/despite-booming-tourism-killings-continue-in-kashmir-1169858.html" target="_blank">Jammu and Kashmir.</a></p>.<p>“We will examine and give a date,” a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said when intervenor Radha Kumar, an academic and author, sought early listing of the petitions on the issue.</p>.<p>Earlier on April 25 and September 23, a bench headed by the then CJI N V Ramana, since retired, had agreed to list for hearing the pleas challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370.</p>.<p>The apex court will have to re-constitute a five-judge bench to hear the pleas as ex-CJI Ramana and Justice R Subhash Reddy, who were part of the five-judge bench which had heard the pleas, have retired.</p>.<p>Besides the two former judges, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, B R Gavai and Surya Kant were part of the bench which, on March 2, 2020, had declined to refer to a larger seven-judge bench the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 on August 5, 2019.</p>.<p>Several petitions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split J-K into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh — were referred to a Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ramana in 2019 by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.</p>.<p>By abrogating Article 370, the Central government had revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>.<p>NGO, People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, and an intervenor had sought referring of the matter to a larger bench on grounds that two judgements of the apex court -- Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 and Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 -- which dealt with the issue of Article 370 conflicted each other and therefore, the current bench of five judges could not hear the issue.</p>.<p>Disagreeing with the petitioners, the bench had said it was of the opinion that "there is no conflict between the judgements". </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would consider a plea for early listing of submissions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 which had given special status to <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/despite-booming-tourism-killings-continue-in-kashmir-1169858.html" target="_blank">Jammu and Kashmir.</a></p>.<p>“We will examine and give a date,” a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha said when intervenor Radha Kumar, an academic and author, sought early listing of the petitions on the issue.</p>.<p>Earlier on April 25 and September 23, a bench headed by the then CJI N V Ramana, since retired, had agreed to list for hearing the pleas challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370.</p>.<p>The apex court will have to re-constitute a five-judge bench to hear the pleas as ex-CJI Ramana and Justice R Subhash Reddy, who were part of the five-judge bench which had heard the pleas, have retired.</p>.<p>Besides the two former judges, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, B R Gavai and Surya Kant were part of the bench which, on March 2, 2020, had declined to refer to a larger seven-judge bench the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 on August 5, 2019.</p>.<p>Several petitions challenging the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split J-K into two Union Territories — Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh — were referred to a Constitution Bench headed by Justice Ramana in 2019 by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.</p>.<p>By abrogating Article 370, the Central government had revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.</p>.<p>NGO, People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association, and an intervenor had sought referring of the matter to a larger bench on grounds that two judgements of the apex court -- Prem Nath Kaul versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1959 and Sampat Prakash versus Jammu and Kashmir in 1970 -- which dealt with the issue of Article 370 conflicted each other and therefore, the current bench of five judges could not hear the issue.</p>.<p>Disagreeing with the petitioners, the bench had said it was of the opinion that "there is no conflict between the judgements". </p>