In a recent turn of events, the Supreme Court of India is set to revisit its decision on the contentious issue of Article 370′s abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir, following the submission of several review petitions. This development comes a month after the apex court’s Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, upheld the legal validity of the abrogation of Article 370 by the President of India in August 2019. The decision had significant political and legal ramifications, as it removed the special status granted to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The parties filing the review petitions include prominent political entities and individuals, such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the National Conference, the J&K People’s Movement, the J&K Awami National Conference, and Advocate Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, who is a petitioner-in-person. These parties and individuals are united in their opposition to the Supreme Court’s December verdict and are seeking a reevaluation of the judgment.
Muzzafar Shah, a leader of the J&K Awami National Conference, made a poignant statement regarding their action:
“Article 370 cannot be killed…We have filed a review petition against SC’s judgement on Article 370. We will debate it in the court.”
This quote encapsulates the determination of these groups to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling and to keep the debate over Article 370 alive within the judicial framework.
The review petitions are filed under specific rules that do not permit a complete rehearing of the case, as would be the case in an appeal. The purpose of these petitions is to address and correct any apparent errors or to mitigate any grave injustice that might have resulted from the court’s decision. It is important to note that the Supreme Court holds the discretion to either accept or reject these review petitions.
Also read-Supreme Court Postpones Umar Khalid’s Bail Hearing To January 24 (lawchakra.in)
In its landmark decision in December, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, which also included Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, declared that Article 370 was a temporary provision. The Bench’s observation was clear:
“The proclamation of Maharaja stated that the Constitution of India will supersede. With this, the para of Instrument of Accession ceases to exist… Article 370 was an interim arrangement due to war conditions in the State. Textual reading also indicates that Article 370 is a temporary provision.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to expedite the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood and to ensure that Legislative Assembly elections are held by September 30, 2024. In a notable recommendation, one of the judges, Justice (now retired) SK Kaul, suggested the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This commission would investigate alleged human rights violations in J&K, with an emphasis on dialogue rather than criminal prosecution.
The submission of these review petitions marks a significant chapter in the ongoing legal and political discourse surrounding the abrogation of Article 370. It reflects the deep complexities and enduring debates over Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, its implications for the region’s future, and the broader conversation about federalism and minority rights in India.