Article 370 Debate: A Deep Dive into the Supreme Court Hearings
The Supreme Court has been engrossed in rigorous discussions concerning the Presidential Orders of 2019, which led to the dilution of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Spearheading the government’s defense were Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, presiding over the bench, posed a significant question to the Union, inquiring,
“means should also be consistent with the ends.”
This query set the tone for the subsequent deliberations.
In his inaugural remarks, the AG emphasized the government’s approach, stating,
“We have tried to bring our own understanding of this emotion, passion-riddled issue. We have kept in mind the objectivity and neutrality required.”
Drawing from Abraham Lincoln’s wisdom, he remarked,
“Abraham Lincoln talked about balancing – losing the nation and preserving the constitution. He said that by general law, life and limb must be protected. But a limb can be amputated to save a life, whereas a life is never given to save a limb.”
Venturing into the historical intricacies, the AG contended that through the Instrument of Accession (IoA) and the proclamation of the Maharaja of J&K, all traces of J&K’s sovereignty were ceded to the Indian dominion. He asserted
“Article 370 was designed to aid the constitutional integration process on the same line as it happened with other states.”
SG Tushar Mehta, building on the AG’s foundation, highlighted the ‘psychological duality’ that had overshadowed J&K due to the ambiguity of Article 370’s nature. He stated,
“The petitioners said your lordships will be making a historical decision in more than one way. This is the first time after 75 years that your lordships would be considering the privileges that the citizens of J&K had been deprived of till then.” Mehta also shed light on J&K’s historical accession, asserting that “the moment the accession was complete, J&K’s sovereignty was lost and it got subsumed with the larger sovereignty of India.”
In a poignant exchange, the Chief Justice remarked,
“For J&K, the Constitution decided to go for Article 370, but for other States there was no such provision and they merged. They accepted all the lists and acceded to the union completely.” This observation underscored the unique trajectory J&K undertook in its integration with India.
The hearings, enriched with historical references, legal provisions, and spirited debates, underscored the complexity of the issue at hand, with the quotes from key stakeholders adding depth and perspective to the deliberate.
