Supreme Court’s Intense Deliberations on Article 370 Abrogation Enter Day 7
In a pivotal session marked by fervent arguments, the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, continued its examination of the abrogation of Article 370. Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave, Shekhar Naphade, and Dinesh Dwivedi presented their cases, each shedding light on different facets of the issue.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Dushyant Dave was forthright in his contention, stating that the President’s Rule
“could not be used to reorganise J&K under Article 3.”
Drawing from historical precedents, he cited the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: The Berubari Union (1960), emphasizing that
“the treaty-making power would have to be exercised in the manner contemplated by the Constitution and subject to the limitations imposed by it.”
Dave further argued that the treaty, which refers to the agreement between J&K and India, should be
“subject to the limitations agreed upon by the Maharaja and India.”
He also pointed out the BJP’s 2019 election manifesto, asserting that the party’s “promise of the abrogation of Article 370 was contrary to constitutional values.”
Shekhar Naphade, building on the theme of constitutional integrity, stressed that
“any interpretation of Article 370(1)(d) had to be made keeping the core of the J&K Constitution intact.”
He was critical of the use of President’s Rule in 2018 to override J&K’s autonomy, describing it as
“unconstitutional” and indicative of the Union’s “ulterior motive.”
Naphade further contended that the bifurcation of J&K into Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh violated the idea of a “Union of States” as envisaged in Article 1.
Dinesh Dwivedi, focusing on the federal structure, argued that converting J&K into Union Territories breached the principle of ‘dual polity’ and federalism. He stated that Union Territories, while part of India, were
“not part of its federal structure.”
Dwivedi also responded to a previous observation by the Chief Justice, asserting that J&K’s accession did not mean it
“surrendered its sovereignty”
to India.
In a defining moment, the Supreme Court clarified that challenges to the abrogation of Article 370 can be based
“only on alleged constitutional violations”
and not on the
“intention or wisdom of the government in making the move.”
With the nation’s eyes fixed on the proceedings, the hearings are set to continue, with the counsels for the petitioners concluding their arguments on Tuesday, August 22, 2023.