Back Article 370 case hearing: Union Territory status of Jammu and Kashmir not ‘permanent’, Govt tells SC. Top points
Article 370 case hearing: Union Territory status of Jammu and Kashmir not ‘permanent’, Govt tells SC. Top points
The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating on cases that challenge the revocation of Article 370, a constitutional provision that conferred special status upon Jammu and Kashmir. As the proceedings enter their twelfth day, the court is engaged in thorough discussions surrounding this significant matter.
During these proceedings, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud notably highlighted a key point on Monday. He emphasized that the now defunct Article 35A had effectively curtailed the privileges of the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. This observation underscores the complex legal and constitutional implications of the abrogation of Article 370 and its associated provisions.
The ongoing hearings underscore the profound legal and societal ramifications of the revocation of Article 370, which has had far-reaching implications for the region and its residents. The court’s engagement with this matter showcases its dedication to examining the various dimensions of this issue and determining its legal validity and potential consequences.
As the hearings continue, the outcomes of the deliberations will play a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape and constitutional discourse surrounding Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and its implications on the rights and privileges of its residents.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, the Indian government conveyed to the Supreme Court that the designation of Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory is not a fixed and unalterable condition. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of India, made this assertion before the court. He emphasized that the union territory status assigned to Jammu and Kashmir is not an enduring arrangement. In contrast, he indicated that the union territory status of Ladakh is anticipated to remain in place for a foreseeable duration.
The statement made by the Solicitor General highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of the administrative structure in the region. The indication that the union territory status for Jammu and Kashmir is not a permanent arrangement underscores the possibility of future changes or considerations in the governance framework.
Furthermore, the differentiation between the union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh reveals the nuanced approach being taken. While Ladakh’s union territory status is projected to persist for a certain period, the situation for Jammu and Kashmir presents a different outlook.
The government’s stance, as presented in the apex court, adds a layer of complexity to the ongoing legal discussions regarding the abrogation of Article 370 and the constitutional changes associated with it. As the proceedings continue, the implications of the evolving administrative status and its potential effects on the region’s governance and legal framework will likely be subjects of thorough examination and deliberation.
During the proceedings on Tuesday, the Indian government informed the Supreme Court that it intends to provide a comprehensive statement regarding the complex and contentious political matter on August 31. This announcement signifies the government’s commitment to addressing the intricate issue within the legal framework and before the court.
By designating a specific date for this statement, the government aims to present a well-considered and detailed perspective on the vexing political matter. This approach reflects a strategic decision to engage with the issue within the judicial context and to offer clarity on the government’s position.
The decision to make this elaborate statement underscores the gravity of the matter at hand and the significance of addressing it in a thorough and structured manner. As the court convenes to hear this statement on August 31, it is anticipated that the government’s articulated stance will contribute to the ongoing legal deliberations and shed light on the complexities surrounding the issue.
![Article 370 Can't Be Abrogated As J&K Constituent Assembly Never Recommended It Before Dissolution : Kapil Sibal Tells Supreme Court [Day 1]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/08/02/484239-article-370-kapil-sibal-and-sc.jpg)
This development adds a layer of anticipation to the ongoing proceedings, as stakeholders await the government’s forthcoming statement and the insights it will provide into the intricate legal and constitutional dimensions of the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta communicated the central government’s response to the court, following a query from a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. The bench had inquired about the establishment of a specific timeline for the restoration of electoral democracy in the former state.
The Solicitor General stated that he will present a comprehensive statement concerning the future status of the union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on August 31 before the bench. The five-judge bench comprises Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant in addition to the Chief Justice.
During the course of the hearing, Mehta, as the top government law officer, was presenting arguments in defense of the Centre’s decision to revoke the special status of the former state and reorganize it. In response, the bench acknowledged the importance of democracy while also considering the national security context, indicating that the reorganization of the state could be a justifiable step.
This exchange in the courtroom emphasizes the careful balance between democratic principles and national security imperatives. The impending detailed statement by the Solicitor General on August 31 is anticipated to provide further insights into the government’s perspective on the status and governance of the union territories. The ongoing legal proceedings continue to engage with the intricate legal, constitutional, and security aspects of this significant matter.
However, the court emphasized that the continuation of the absence of electoral democracy cannot be permitted indefinitely.
The bench stated, “This state of affairs must come to an end… provide us with a specific timeframe outlining when the restoration of genuine democracy will take place. We wish to officially record this.” The judges requested Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Attorney General R Venkataramani to consult with the political leadership and return to the court with further information.
The turning point in this matter took place in 2019 when Union Home Minister Amit Shah proposed the revocation of Article 370 and Article 35A. This proposal was followed by an executive order issued by the then-President Ram Nath Kovind, named the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019. This order declared that the provisions of the Indian Constitution would henceforth be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir. This step was viewed by experts as a move to align the northern state with the constitutional provisions applicable to other states within India.
In 2019, amid heightened tensions and public protests following the decision to revoke Article 370, PDP president Mehbooba Mufti, along with other PDP leaders, was subjected to preventive house arrest. This action was taken as a precautionary measure in response to the volatile situation that had arisen in Jammu and Kashmir.
The aftermath of the decision witnessed a lockdown-like scenario being imposed in the region, coupled with protests by residents against the decision. The revocation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, sparked considerable unrest and led to a complex political and social landscape in the state.
As the Supreme Court of India deliberated on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370, the related matter of Article 35A was also brought into the discussions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, during the hearings, pointed out on Monday that Article 35A had resulted in the curtailment of three fundamental rights. This observation underscores the complex legal implications and the constitutional considerations surrounding these provisions, which have elicited substantial debates and discussions.
The interplay of legal actions, political decisions, and societal responses reveals the intricate nature of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The hearings before the Supreme Court delve into these complexities, addressing the legal and constitutional dimensions while acknowledging the broader societal context in which these changes occurred.
