In a pivotal hearing concerning Article 370, the Supreme Court of India delved deep into the nuances of the constitutional provision and its implications for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, engaged in a rigorous discussion with Senior Counsel Dinesh Dwivedi, who represented the petitioners.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!A central theme of the hearing revolved around the weight and significance of speeches made by Members of Parliament during the Constituent Assembly Debates. CJI Chandrachud posed a thought-provoking question,
“Can we say a speech by a Member of Parliament will have an effect of a binding commitment of a nation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir? This will have implications in interpreting the constitutional provision.”
Justice Khanna further elaborated on this point, emphasizing the need to consider the broader context of such debates. He remarked,
“We cannot read portions of the debate and come to this conclusion. You need to read the full context. In a debate, there are statements and replies to questions.”
The discussion took a turn when Justice Kaul sought clarity on Dwivedi’s stance, questioning if the Senior Counsel was suggesting that the Constituent Assembly Debates indicated that Article 370 had, in essence, dissolved itself. Dwivedi, in his response, highlighted that these debates showcased the intention of the framers of the Constitution.
However, CJI Chandrachud expressed reservations about this interpretation. He pointed out the potential ramifications of such a viewpoint, stating,
“Net consequence will be, the application of the Constitution of India will be frozen to the State of Jammu and Kashmir after 1957 – how can this be permitted? If Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, then surely there have to be provisions for the democratically elected government of the country. There are no provisions in the Indian Constitution which bars its applicability to Jammu and Kashmir, if your contention is taken.”
This ongoing debate in the apex court underscores the intricate relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Constitution. The interpretation of Article 370 and its historical context remains a focal point of discussion, with the nation keenly awaiting the court’s final verdict on this constitutional conundrum.
