Article 370 case: Wouldn’t touch special provisions applicable to north-east, Centre tells SC

New Delhi [India], August 23 : The Central Government on Wednesday made it clear before the Supreme Court that it has no intentions to interfere with the special provisions in the Constitution applicable to the northeastern states of the country. 
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said, "We must understand the difference between a temporary provision such as Article 370 and special provisions which are applicable to the northeast (India). The Central government has no intention to touch any part that gives special provisions to the northeast and other regions. This will have serious repercussions. There is no apprehension and there is no need to create apprehension.”
Solicitor General, appearing for Centre, made the statement during the hearing of the pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 after senior advocate Manish Tiwari representing a political party in Arunachal Pradesh, raised apprehensions about taking away the special provisions applicable to northeastern states in the manner in which Jammu and Kashmir's special status was repealed.
Article 370, there are provisions in the Constitution like Article 371 and the 6th Schedule which envisage special provisions for northeastern states, Tiwari said.
Even a slight apprehension in the periphery of India can have serious implications, Tiwari said, adding that this court is currently dealing with one such situation in Manipur.
To this, a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said, “When as a constitutional principle the Solicitor General has informed us that the government has no such intention, why should we apprehend this at all? We should not enter that territory at all. The impact of abrogation - that point has been made. Let's not focus on northeast like this. The apprehensions are allayed by the statement of the Central government.”
The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant then disposed of the application in which Tiwari appeared while recording the statement of the Solicitor General.
"Solicitor General Mehta has submitted on specific instructions of the Centre that it has no intention to affect any of the special provisions application in northeast and any part of the county. Reference of this case is to Article 370 and thus there is no commonality of interest in the IA and the case being heard," the bench stated in its order.
Meanwhile, petitioners challenging the abrogation of Article 370 have completed their arguments in the case and Centre will commence its submissions from Thursday.
During the hearing, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that them Governor of Jammu and Kashmir had no prior knowledge about the Centre's decisions on August 4, 2019, and cited the part of his media interview.
To abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370, the concurrence of the Government of J&K is needed, senior advocate said, adding that there was no effective concurrence given by the Governor to abrogate Article 370.
The Constitution bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution and bifurcating the state into two Union Territories.
On August 5, 2019, the Central government announced the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir granted under Article 370 and split the region into two Union territories.