The Union of India on Wednesday apprised the Supreme Court that it has absolutely no intention to interfere with the special provisions applicable to North Eastern states or other parts of the country.
The submission was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta before the Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant during the hearing of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370.
Appearing for the Central government, Mehta contended that the Centre had no intention to touch any part, which gave special provisions to the North East and other regions of the country.
He made the submission in response to an intervention application filed by an Arunachal Pradesh politician.
Appearing for the politician, Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari argued that the Centre may take away the special provisions applicable to North Eastern states in a similar manner in which it stripped of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir by abrogating Article 370.
Tiwari further contended that there were provisions in the Constitution such as Article 371 and the 6th Schedule, which envisaged special provisions for the North Eastern states, much like the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370.
He said even a slight apprehension in the periphery of India could have serious implications, adding that the Apex Court was currently dealing with one such situation in Manipur.
Terming Tiwari’s submissions as a ‘very potential mischief,’ SG Mehta said that it was important to understand the difference between the temporary provision which was Article 370 and the special provisions with regards to the north east.
He asserted that there was no apprehension regarding the special provisions applicable to the North east and that there was no need to create an apprehension as well.
The Constitution Bench then disposed of the intervention petition on the grounds that the apprehensions made in the IA have been allayed by the statement of the Central government.
Stating that it should not enter that territory at all, the Bench said there was no need to deal with anything in anticipation or apprehension.
Noting that it was dealing with a specific provision of Article 370, the Apex Court observed that there was no need to expand the ambit of impact (of abrogation).