After facing criticism from estranged partner Peoples' Conference for attending the meeting of the Delimitation Commission in Delhi, National Conference president and former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah of Jammu and Kashmir said on Friday that his party is preparing to approach the Supreme Court against the panel's recommendations.
National Conference leader rather described the whole exercise, including the formation of the Delimitation Commission as its recommendation as "illegal".
Abdullah argued that his party has already challenged Jammu and Kashmir Re-organization Act 2019 so the constitution of the Delimitation Commission under this Act is 'illegal'.
Defending his decision to participate in the meeting of the panel, he said, "If we did not participate, they would still criticize us. So criticism is part of this life and we do not get worried by criticism."
Estranged partner has criticized NC for attending panel's meeting
Estranged partner of the Peoples' Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) Sajad Lone, chairman of Peoples' Conference has lambasted Lok Sabha members of the National Conference for participating in the second meeting of the Delimitation Commission.
Sajad Lone has criticized the National Conference over its U-turn on the delimitation commission. He questioned the decision of the National Conference MPs to attend a meeting of the Panel after boycotting the first meeting held in February this year. Lone has asked the NC to explain how this was not an endorsement of the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370.
NC had boycotted the first meeting of Delimitation Commission
Three Members of Parliament (MPs) of the National Conference, who are associate members of the panel, had boycotted the first meeting of the Delimitation Commission held in February this year.
The three NC MPs had written to the panel that they would not attend the meeting as the delimitation exercise was being conducted under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, whose legality was under challenge. They had stated that the Act was "palpably unconstitutional" and had been enacted in "disregard and violation" of the mandate and spirit of the Constitution.
