Two recent judgments in crucial cases have seen the Supreme Court bank on the government’s assurances to set things on track.
The first came from a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, which decided to rest easy on the back of an assurance given by the Solicitor General, representing the Union government, that Statehood will soon be restored to Jammu and Kashmir.
In the second judgment, a three-judge Bench also led by the CJI took the word of the Solicitor General, this time representing the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), that its investigations against the Adani group will be completed expeditiously.
Article 144 of the Constitution mandates that “all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court”.
‘Statehood will be restored’
“The Solicitor General (for the Union of India) submitted that Statehood will be restored to Jammu and Kashmir and that its status as a Union Territory is temporary,” Chief Justice Chandrachud observed. This is part of the lead opinion which he authored on December 11 while upholding the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution and the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.
The court also chose to accept the Solicitor General’s submission that the status of the UnionTerritory of Ladakh would “not be affected” by the restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. In short, Ladakh, which was part of the erstwhile State, will remain a Union Territory.
“In view of the submission made by the Solicitor General that Statehood would be restored of Jammu and Kashmir, we do not find it necessary to determine whether the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir is permissible under Article 3,” the court concluded.
Article 3 of the Constitution deals with any alterations made in the name or area of a State, and says that the question should be referred to the State Legislature for its views.
‘Comprehensive probe’
The second instance was in the Hindenburg-Adani case. The three-judge Bench of the court found the SEBI investigation into the Adani group “comprehensive”. The petitioners had sought a transfer of the probe from the SEBI to another agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation, or even the formation of an Special Investigation Team by the court.
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for the Bench through its judgment, noted that 22 investigations were over, while two remained pending as inputs from foreign regulators were awaited. The court virtually endorsed SEBI’s role as regulator and investigator, saying that there was no “apparent regulatory failure” nor “deliberate inaction or inadequacy” in the probe against the Adani group.
The court, while noting that the investigation is “complex”, recorded “the assurance given by the Solicitor General on behalf of SEBI that the investigations would be concluded expeditiously”.
