Supreme Court Reserves Judgment on Article 370 Case After Extensive 16-Day Hearing
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the contentious issue of the Union Government’s 2019 decision to repeal Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 of the Constitution. This decision also encompasses the challenge to the J&K Reorganization Act, which bifurcated the state into the Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh.
The hearing, which spanned over sixteen days, began on August 2, 2023. This case had been dormant for over three years, with its last appearance in court in March 2020.
Petitioners, represented by a team of senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, Zaffar Shah, and Rajeev Dhavan, emphasized the unique relationship J&K held with India. They highlighted that the Maharaja of J&K retained internal sovereignty, even after the Instrument of Accession (IoA) was signed, granting the Union powers related to foreign affairs, communication, and defense. They argued that Article 370 had become a permanent feature post the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957. The petitioners also underscored the misuse of Article 356, which imposes President’s Rule, contending that it was used to dismantle the state legislature in J&K.
Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium remarked,
“The instrument of accession finds a place in Article 370 and even the Constituent Assembly finds a place in 370. It was stated that there is no mention of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution in the Indian Constitution but my point is it is there. Look at the word – Constitution of the State and it is no other Constitution, but the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.”
On the other hand, the Union Government, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the abrogation of Article 370 resolved the ‘psychological duality’ of J&K’s residents. They emphasized that the Constitution makers intended for Article 370 to be a ‘temporary’ provision. The respondents also argued that J&K’s conversion to a Union Territory was a temporary measure due to its sensitive border location, with the promise of restoring its statehood in the future.
The Union’s stance was supported by intervenors, represented by Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Rakesh Dwivedi, and V Giri, among others.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this landmark case is eagerly awaited, as it will determine the constitutional validity of the Union Government’s actions and the future status of Jammu and Kashmir.