Says parties can approach for interim relief if there is change of circumstances
Srinagar, Oct 21: The Jammu & Kashmir High Court on Monday while admitting the writ petition for final hearing, declined to stay nomination of five MLAs by Lieutenant Governor of Jammu & Kashmir Union Territory during pendency of the case.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri refused to grant stay on nominations pending adjudication of the matter.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi Sr. Adv., who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, argued for staying nominations pending final adjudication of the matter.
However, the prayer was opposed by Tushar Mehta (Solicitor general of India) with Vishal Sharma (Deputy solicitor general of India) appearing for Union Government .
After hearing the parties, the Court issued notice in the petition. However, the Court declined interim relief to the petitioner leaving it open for the parties to approach the Court again in case of change of circumstance holding that “In view of the fact that the Government has been formed, there is no urgency for grant of interim relief prayed for. The prayer of the petitioners for interim relief at this stage is declined. The parties shall be at liberty to approach this Court for interim relief, should there be a change in the circumstances,” the HC said, as per news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO).
The Court has listed the matter for final consideration on December 5.
The petition, filed by Ravinder Sharma, spokesperson for Pradesh Congress Committee, states that the current provisions empowering the LG to nominate members were against the basic spirit and structure of the Constitution.
The petitioner, in his petition, contended that the LG must seek aid and advice of the council of ministers before making such nominations.
Sharma had approached the Supreme Court against Sections 15, 15A and 15B of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, which empower the LG to nominate five members to the assembly.
The petitioner ha earlier approached Supreme Court with a similar petition but the Supereme Court, however, declined to entertain the petition and asked the petitioner to first approach the high court.
