Justice

Supreme Court Affirms the Revocation of Article 370

7 months ago
133 Views
1 Comment
Article 370

Article 370, a provision seen as temporary since its inception in 1949, has been facing scrutiny in the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling on December 11, 2023, upheld the Union Government’s 2019 decision to revoke the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370 of the Constitution.

Historical Genesis of Article 370

Foundations of Special Status: Article 370 was initially introduced in the Indian Constitution as a temporary provision, providing special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The instrument of accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947 allowed the state to retain its autonomy, making it distinct from other states in the Indian Union. The provision was designed as a transitional arrangement until a more permanent solution could be achieved.

The Abrogation of Article 370

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, made a historic decision to abrogate Article 370, thereby revoking the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir. This move was accompanied by the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. The decision sparked widespread debates on its legality, constitutionality, and political ramifications.

Numerous legal challenges were mounted against the abrogation of Article 370, questioning its constitutionality. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional matters, was tasked with examining the validity of the government’s decision.

Key Issues and Questions Framed by the Court

The Supreme Court, in its deliberations, addressed a series of critical issues raised during the proceedings:

  • Whether Article 370’s provisions were transitory or had acquired a permanent status.
  • Whether the constitutional validity of amending Article 367, replacing ‘constituent assembly’ with ‘legislative assembly,’ was justified.
  • Whether the application of the entire Indian Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1)(d) was constitutionally permissible.
  • Whether the President’s abrogation of Article 370 lacked validity due to the absence of a recommendation from the J&K Constituent Assembly.
  • Whether the Governor’s proclamation dissolving the state’s legislative assembly held constitutional merit.
  • Whether the imposition of Presidential rule in December 2018 and subsequent extensions was legally valid.
  • Whether the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, dividing the state into two Union Territories, adhered to constitutional principles.
  • Whether J&K’s status during the Article 356 proclamation and legislative assembly dissolution as a Union Territory constituted a valid exercise of power.

Key Takeaways of the Verdict

Article 370 Is a Temporary Provision: The Court affirmed that Article 370 was a temporary provision based on a historical reading, emphasizing its transitory and temporary nature. The power of the President under Article 370(3) to issue a notification declaring Article 370’s cessation subsisted even after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly.

Concurrence of State Government Not Required: The Court held that the concurrence of the State government was not required to apply all provisions of the Indian Constitution to J&K under Article 370(1)(d). It emphasized that the President’s decision did not require the State’s concurrence, and the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was recommendatory. Validity of J&K Reorganisation Act 2019: The Court did not adjudicate on the validity of the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019, which bifurcated the state into Union Territories. However, it upheld the creation of Ladakh as a Union Territory, citing Article 3 of the Constitution.

Political and Public Ramifications

The abrogation of Article 370 has been a polarizing move, with varying political responses and public reactions. Supporters argue that it integrates Jammu and Kashmir fully into the Indian Union, while critics contend that it undermines the promised autonomy. The Supreme Court’s verdict is likely to intensify these debates, shaping political narratives and influencing public sentiment on the issue.

Also Read: Supreme Court To Announce Its Verdict In Article 370 Case On December 11

Constitutional Reckoning

As India moves forward, the abrogation of Article 370 necessitates a careful and balanced approach. While integration into the national mainstream is crucial for fostering unity, efforts must also be made to address the aspirations and concerns of the region’s residents. Striking a delicate balance between national integrity and regional autonomy within the constitutional framework is imperative.

The abrogation of Article 370 has not only generated debates within India but has also drawn international attention. Various countries and international bodies have responded differently to the developments in Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court’s verdict is likely to influence international perceptions and diplomatic engagements, shaping India’s stance on the global stage.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Article 370 is not merely a legal verdict; it represents a historical moment reflecting the evolution of the Indian Constitution. The ruling reaffirms constitutional principles such as federalism, parliamentary sovereignty, and the authority of elected representatives to make significant decisions in the interest of the nation. As India navigates the complexities of regional autonomy and national integration, the abrogation of Article 370 will remain a focal point of constitutional discourse and political discussions for years to come.

What’s your Reaction?
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
+1
0
Tags:
Shares:

1 Comment

Comments are closed