Read Time: 03 minutes
The Bench was of the opinion that, "whatever you have filed in 2006, can not be a basis for amendments now". And further clarified that, "What you are asking is that since it is a Union Territory now therefore, what is prevalent in other Union Territories to apply here ipso facto, and that can not be applied here since it is a matter of policy".
A Bench of CJI U.U. Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, on Wednesday, while hearing a plea challenging the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005, further seeking a declaration to hold the provisions to be illegal and unconstitutional, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea.
In the pertinent matter a plea was filed in the year 2006, where the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2005 was brought under scrutiny. The matter has been pending before the Court since then.
The Court considering a gap of 16 years, and the reorganisation of the State into a territory and hence the developments since then, was of the opinion that there wasn't a need for the plea to still be in existence.
The Bench stated that "whatever you have filed in 2006, can not be a basis for amendments now". And further clarified that, "What you are asking is that since it is a Union Territory now therefore, what is prevalent in other Union Territories to apply here ipso facto, and that can not be applied here since it is a matter of policy".
The Court thus opined that, "ASG Vikramjit Banerjee invited our attention to the factual development to certain provisions through amendments. In view of these developments since the filing, we permit to withdraw the writ petition, with a liberty to approach appropriate authority in any manner known to law".
CASE TITLE: Munilal and Ors vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr.
Please Login or Register
