Supreme Court Queries Centre on Timeline for J&K’s Statehood Restoration
The Supreme Court, in a recent hearing, sought clarity from the Centre regarding a “timeframe” for reinstating Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading the bench, emphasized the significance of
“restoration of democracy”
during the hearing of petitions challenging the repeal of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, informed the court that the decision to split Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories – J&K and Ladakh – was a
“temporary measure.”
He assured that the statehood of J&K would be reinstated in the future.
A pivotal point of discussion was the court’s inquiry into whether Article 370 could be utilized to modify itself. The court remarked,
“Article 370 can be used to amend other provisions but can it be used to amend Article 370 itself? That’s the heart of the matter.”
The bench further questioned the feasibility of revoking the provision without a constituent assembly in place, noting,
“If Article 367 was amended through Article 370 with the concurrence of the state (J&K), the petitioners wouldn’t have challenged its scrapping.”
Mr. Mehta clarified that the abrogation of the provision followed due process. He stated,
“As there was no council of ministers in Jammu and Kashmir then, the Governor exercised those powers. The President used Article 370 with the concurrence of the Governor.”
He further argued that any constitutional amendment that
“brings everyone at par can never be faulted.”
Emphasizing the broader implications, Mehta added,
“It was the people of the state who were behind the integration of the state with the Union of India. The removal of some provisions could also be in furtherance of the basic structure of the Constitution – fraternity, equality – it’s a basic structure, it’s a part of brotherhood.”
Petitioners against the repeal of Article 370 have consistently argued that the provision’s abrogation was not permissible. They believe that since the term of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly, which was required to concur before such an action, concluded in 1957, Article 370 had attained a permanent status.
However, the Centre refuted these claims, with Attorney General R Venkataramani asserting that there was no
“constitutional fraud”
in the provision’s abrogation. He emphasized,
“There was no wrong-doing and there was no constitutional fraud as alleged by the other side. The step was necessary to be taken. Their argument is flawed and inconceivable.”
The debate over Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood and the implications of Article 370 continues to be a focal point in India’s legal and political arenas.