'Not the end of the road, political fight will continue': Omar Abdullah on SC's Article 370 verdict Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir): As Supreme Court of India on Monday upheld the abrogation of Article 370, which gave a special status to the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir state, former Chief Minister and NC Vice President, whose party was one of the petitioners pleading the case, said it was “not the end of the road”.
A five-judge Constitutional bench of the apex court led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud upheld the abrogation of Article 370 by the BJP led Central government, saying that the Article 370, which gave a special status to the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir state, was temporary. Omar who said that the main gate of his Gupkar residence in Srinagar had been padlocked by the LG Manoj Sinha led JK administration, said in a X Live, “I wanted to share my reaction to the Supreme Court's verdict on Article 370 with the media, but they were not allowed inside and I was disallowed to move out”.
“So I had to adopt this route (going live on X). “Today the SC finally gave its verdict on Article 370 and Article 35 A and bifurcation of state into two UTs. Were we expecting this verdict? No, not at all. We had knocked the door of the apex court because we were demanding justice. Obviously, we couldn't have done more. Opponents too appreciated that we had the best lawyers to argue in our favour and to restore the article and statehood. Unfortunately, we could not convince the five judge bench hearing the batch of pleas. I not only lament that, but seek an apology to the people of J&K, Ladakh and rest of the country who wanted us to win the case. I seek forgiveness from the core of my heart,” Omar said.
“That said, the matter doesn't end here. Had the media been here. Maybe they could have asked me whether I respected the court. Obviously we respect the Supreme Court. Had we not respected the court, why would we have gone to the court in the first place? After losing the case, if I say that I don't respect the SC, that would be wrong. Do we have other options now? Why not? Obviously we have the options. Can we approach the court of law again. I can't comment. For that we will have to talk to the lawyers for that and after going through the detailed judgment. We can decide whether the doors of the court should be knocked or not. This will take time. Maybe the next year, we will be able to come up with a proposal. Having said that, I have always said that our fight is a political and constitutional fight within the ambit of law”.
