The centre today told Supreme Court that it has no plan to touch the special provisions for Northeastern states and argued why they are different from the now-removed special status of Jammu and Kashmir.
The clarification came in response to advocate Manish Tiwari's argument during the hearing on petitions that challenge the centre's 2019 move to dilute Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcate the erstwhile state into two Union Territories.
Advocate Tiwari had argued that after Independence, India had decided to manage its periphery through Constitutional guarantees "because we were building a republic".
"That is how Article 370, which applies to Jammu and Kashmir, Article 371, the six sub parts of which apply to North East and the sixth schedule of Constitution which applies to Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya, becomes relevant in this matter," he said.
Advocate Tiwari said "even a slight apprehension in the periphery of India can have serious implications" and also pointed to the ongoing unrest in Manipur which has claimed over 150 lives.
In a sharp response to the arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there is a need to understand the difference between the "temporary provision" of Article 370 and the special provisions for Northeastern states.
"The central government does not have any intention of touching any part giving special provisions to Northeastern states. This argument is a mischief," he said, adding, "There is no apprehension and there is no need to create apprehension."
The Supreme Court took the Centre's submission on record, with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asking Mr Tiwari to confine arguments to Jammu and Kashmir.
The centre's submission, the Chief Justice said, must dispel any apprehension. The Constitution bench said it will not hold the hearing over apprehensions and it will not enter any other matter other than the one dealing with Article 370.
