SC rejects attempts to link 'impact' of Article 370 in North East: Congress MP, Manish Tewari, gets a snub for raising Manipur issue

Congress MP,  Manish Tewari, gets a snub in Supreme Court for raising Manipur issue during hearing on Art 370  

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the apex court that the centre has "no intention to touch any part (of  Art 371) which gives special provisions to North East" 

During hearing the CJI, D Y Chandrachud, also said that the Solicitor General's statement on behalf of Union allays any apprehension in this regard"

At the end of 9-day hearing, a host of  petitioners represented by country's top lawyers have concluded their arguments on Article 370. 

The Union government will commence its arguments on Thursday, Aug 24. 

CJI D Y Chandrachud said the five-member bench will be sitting on the matter on Monday, Aug 28 as well.  

During the hearing on Wednesday (Aug 23), Congress MP, Manish Tewari appearing on behalf of an intervenor was snubbed when he tried to draw an analogy between Art 370 and Art 371 as different provisions applies to different states in the north east. 

Tewari said, "The underlying principle of autonomy under Article 370 and Article 371 is more or less the same. So therefore, what your lordships will hold in this matter, will have implications on Article 371". 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, "I have instructions to say this. We must understand the difference between temporary provision which is Article 370 and special provisions with regards to the north east.  

The SG further stated, "The Central government has no intention to touch any part which gives special provisions to North East and other regions. This submission will have a very potential mischief". 

"There is no apprehension and there is no need to create apprehension," he was very categorical. 

Tewari, however, contended, "I was not referring to the current central government. I was referring to the principle at state".

At this Chief Justice, Chandrachud maintained, "Why should we deal with anything in anticipation or apprehension? We are dealing with a specific provision of Art 370. We don't have to expand the ambit on impact".

Justice S K Kaul said, "This is a special provision (with regard to Manipur or northeast); while Art 370 is stated to be a temporary provision". 

CJI also said, "When as a constitutional principle the Solicitor Gerneral has informed us that the Govt has no such intention why should we apprehend this at all?" 

CJI Chandrachud also asserted, "We should not enter that territory at all. The impact of abrogation - that point has been made. Let's not focus on North East like this. The apprehensions are allayed by the statement of the central government."  

Justice Gavai also said, "Special Provisions are there in the state of Maharashtra also. But we're only interpreting 370 right now."  

CJI said, "Hence, it is submitted that the interpretation by this court in Art 370 would impact other provisions. SG has submitted on specific instructions of Union that Union Government has no intention to affect any of the special provisions applicable to North east or any part of India".

"The reference of this case is confined to Article 370. ..... In any event, SG's statement on behalf of Union allays any apprehension in this regard".