LawLoveLegal

The ongoing debate over Jammu & Kashmir’s restoration of statehood has taken a significant turn as Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced that he is exploring the possibility of becoming a party to the petitions pending before the Supreme Court . The top court is currently hearing multiple pleas seeking the reinstatement of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, which was revoked on August 5, 2019 , following the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories (J&K and Ladakh) . Supreme Court Proceedings on Statehood Restoration On October 10, 2025 , the Supreme Court of India granted the Centre four weeks to file its response in the ongoing hearings related to the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. The petitions argue that the prolonged Union Territory status undermines federalism , representative democracy , and constitutional autonomy once guaranteed under Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution. Chief Minister Oma...

The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating a significant constitutional question: whether it can prescribe fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills, despite the Constitution’s explicit language requiring them to act only “as soon as possible.” Background: The Presidential Reference under Article 143 The issue stems from an April 8 ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that imposed deadlines — three months for the President to decide on bills and one month for governors to act on re-enacted bills. The judgment sparked intense debate, leading to a Presidential Reference under Article 143 . The reference, sent by President Droupadi Murmu in May, places 14 questions before the Court, including whether judicially crafting procedural rules where the Constitution is silent amounts to rewriting constitutional provisions . The matter is being heard by a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai , with Justic...

The ongoing constitutional debate on the powers of governors and the President regarding pending state bills took a sharp turn as the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that states have no legal right to approach the top court under Article 32 to allege violation of their rights due to delayed or withheld assent. This submission came during the hearing of President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference in May, which seeks clarity on the April 8 Supreme Court ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and governors to act on pending bills. Key Arguments from the Union Government Appearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai , Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta asserted that: States Cannot Claim Fundamental Rights The Constitution confers fundamental rights on citizens and individuals, not governments. A state is “the State” as defined under Article 12 and is a repository of duties , not a hold...

Plea Filed in Supreme Court for Restoration of  Jammu and Kashmir’s Statehood A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court  of India, urging the Court to issue directions for the immediate restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir . The application, filed by Zahoor Ahmed Bhat (a college teacher) and activist Khurshaid Ahmad Malik , calls for a time-bound restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, stating that the delay is causing significant harm to both the federal structure of the country and the fundamental rights of its citizens. Background and Key Points of the Plea Union Government’s Assurance The plea argues that despite assurances given by the Solicitor General of India that Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood would be restored, there has been no progress over the last ten months  since the Supreme Court’s decision on the abrogation of Article 370 . The petitioners have filed this application seeking a two-month timeframe  for the restoration of sta...

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Pleas on States' Power to  Levy Tax on Minerals In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed review petitions challenging its earlier judgment, which allowed states to levy taxes on mineral-bearing lands . The judgment also upheld that royalty on extracted minerals is not a tax. The petitions were aimed at revisiting the decision of the nine-judge bench but were rejected by a majority verdict. Background of the Case The core issue in the case revolved around whether state governments have the power to levy taxes on mines and minerals , a matter of critical importance for natural resource management and fiscal federalism . The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in July 2024 that states hold the legislative power to tax mineral rights and that royalty payments made to the government are contractual considerations , not taxes. The decision was appealed by the Central Government , pointing out what it termed as ...