Voices from IIOJK

‘Tactical process of rigging before polls’: Regional politicians reject verdict on IIOJK delimitation

Srinagar, February 13 (KMS): People’s Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti has said the Indian Supreme Court dismissing the petition challenging the delimitation process in Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir is immaterial when legal challenges to abrogation of Article 370 are pending before the apex court.

Mehbooba Mufti speaking to reporters in south Kashmir’s Bijbehara area said, “We have rejected the delimitation commission from the outset. It does not matter to us what the verdict is”.

The Indian top court today dismissed a plea challenging the Modi government’s decision to constitute the delimitation commission for redrawing the legislative assembly and Lok Sabha constituencies in IIOJK.

Mehbooba Mufi questioned the SC delivering the verdict on the delimitation petition when other pleas were still pending consideration. “The challenge to the Reorganisation Act (under which the delimitation process was carried out) is pending, challenge to abrogation of Article 370 is pending before the SC. If all that is pending, how can they (the SC) give verdict on this petition?” she asked.

The PDP chief maintained that delimitation was a tactical process of rigging before the elections, adding, “That’s what they have done, converting the majority into a minority, in favour of the BJP. We have not even participated in the discussions of the delimitation commission.”

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami said the SC’s verdict has added to the long list of disappointments for the people of IIOJK. Terming the verdict unacceptable, Tarigami, who is also a spokesperson for the People’s Alliance for Gupkar Declaration, said, “It is just delimitation in the name of delimitation. They have virtually disrupted the unity of people of Jammu and Kashmir”. He maintained there were a bunch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the Reorganisation Act before the Supreme Court but those were not being heard.

Related Articles

Back to top button