Supreme Court Examines Article 370: Implications for Jammu & Kashmir’s Constitutional Status in India
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has been examining the applicability of the Indian Constitution to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in the context of Article 370. The apex court has underscored that there are no provisions in the Indian Constitution that bar its applicability to Jammu and Kashmir.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!On the 8th day of the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed its reservations about the argument that the application of the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir would remain static after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957. Senior Advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, representing the petitioners, remarked that the abrogation of Article 370 was a regressive step. He posed a thought-provoking question,
“Our thinking, which we have been tuned to think for the last 70 years, is that one nation, one constitution. But where is that prescribed?”
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud responded by probing the implications of the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1957 on the dominion of India’s power to apply any provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. Dwivedi, in his reply, emphasized the importance of understanding the intent derived from the debates of the time. However, the CJI highlighted the potential consequences of such a stance, stating,
“The net consequence will be the application of the Constitution of India will be frozen to the state of J&K after 1957. How can this be permitted? If J&K is an integral part of India… then surely there has to be provisions for the democratically elected government of the country.”
Furthering the discourse, Senior Advocate CU Singh touched upon the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, emphasizing its significance for the people of J&K. He warned of the potential risks to democracy and federalism if certain interpretations of Article 3 were upheld. Another Senior Advocate, Sanjay Parikh, argued that the act of Parliament was unconstitutional as it altered the explanation without the prior recommendation of the Constituent Assembly. He stressed the sovereignty of the people of Kashmir and their decision to draft the J&K Constitution.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, during the hearing, sought clarity on whether Dwivedi’s argument implied that the Constituent Assembly Debates indicated that Article 370 of the Constitution had dissolved itself. Dwivedi clarified that it showcased the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
The arguments in the court remained inconclusive, and the hearing is set to continue.
This ongoing debate in the Supreme Court underscores the intricate relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Constitution, with Article 370 at its core. As the nation watches closely, the outcome of these hearings will have profound implications for the future of Jammu and Kashmir’s constitutional status within India.
