Division Bench Admits PIL Challenging Lieutenant Governor’s Power to Nominate MLAs
JAMMU, Oct 21: A Special Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, consisting of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri, has admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the Lieutenant Governor’s authority to nominate five members to the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory.
The PIL, brought forward by petitioner Ravinder Sharma, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi via video conferencing, along with a legal team comprising Advocates D K Khajuria, Muhammad Ali Khan, Omar Hoda, Uday Bhatia, Arjun Sharma, Esha Bakshi, Kamran Khan, Gurbani Bhatia, and Ayush Panjotra, questions the legality of certain provisions within the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. The respondents, represented by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Deputy Solicitor General Vishal Sharma, and Senior Additional Advocate Generals Mohsin Qadri, Rashid Malik, and their assisting counsel, also appeared via video conferencing.
The core issue raised by the PIL revolves around Sections 15, 15-A, and 15-B of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. These provisions allow for the nomination of members to the Legislative Assembly beyond the sanctioned strength. The petition argues that these sections are in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution as they could alter the balance of power by potentially converting a minority government into a majority, thus infringing upon democratic principles.
The Division Bench acknowledged that the petition raises substantial and debatable questions of constitutional law, particularly in relation to whether the Lieutenant Governor’s power to nominate MLAs exceeds constitutional limits.
Having admitted the petition for further hearing, the Division Bench issued notices to the respondents and scheduled the matter for final consideration on December 5, 2024.
Regarding the petitioner’s request for interim relief, the court noted that, given the current formation of the Government, there was no immediate urgency warranting such relief at this stage. The request for interim relief was therefore declined. However, the court left the option open for the parties to seek interim relief in the future, should the circumstances change.
This case is likely to have significant implications for the constitutional interpretation of the powers conferred upon the Lieutenant Governor under the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, particularly in the context of legislative representation and governance in the Union Territory.
