The much-anticipated Supreme Court proceedings on the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to revoke ‘Article 370,’ which granted special status to the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, have concluded with a landmark verdict.
Consequently, the five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered a unanimous judgment, supporting the Centre’s move to scrap the provisions of Article 370 and bifurcate the region into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
1. Background
In 2019, the Centre took a historic step by abolishing the special status conferred by Article 370 and reorganizing the state. Consequently, this decision triggered a series of legal challenges, leading to a comprehensive 16-day-long hearing in the Supreme Court.
During the hearings, the petitioners contended that Article 370 could not be unilaterally revoked by the Centre. They emphasized that the powers of the Constituent Assembly had been transferred to the Jammu and Kashmir legislature after its dissolution in 1957
2. The Supreme Court Proceedings
Extensive arguments from both sides marked the Supreme Court proceedings. The petitioners contended that the unilateral revocation of Article 370 by the Centre was constitutionally impermissible.
hey asserted that the powers of the Constituent Assembly had been transferred to the Jammu and Kashmir legislature upon its dissolution in 1957, making the Centre’s action legally untenable.
On the other hand, the Centre defended its decision, arguing that it was well within the legal framework. The government contended that the mainstreaming of Jammu and Kashmir had reduced terrorism and created a level playing field for development, thereby justifying its actions.
3. Key Arguments and Legal Complexities
1. Article 370’s Temporary Nature: The Chief Justice of India underscored that Article 370 was a temporary provision. This temporariness was a crucial aspect of the constitutional debate, with the court emphasizing the unique circumstances under which the provision was incorporated and the need for its eventual resolution.
2. Validity of Presidential Rule: The Supreme Court refused to rule on the validity of the Presidential rule imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in December 2018, citing that the petitioner did not specifically challenge it.
This decision raised questions about the extent of the President’s power during such rule and its implications on the state’s governance.
3. Power to Reorganise States: The court grappled with whether the Centre had the authority to reorganize Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories – Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The judgment clarified the constitutional scope of such restructuring, asserting the validity of creating Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 370.
4. Key Takeaways from the Verdict
1. Article 370’s Validity Upheld: The Supreme Court, in a resounding verdict, upheld the constitutional validity of the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370, thereby nullifying the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir.
2. Creation of Ladakh as a Union Territory: The court also validated the Centre’s move to carve out the Union Territory of Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019.
5. Justice Kaul’s Separate Order
During the proceedings, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul issued a separate ruling, calling for an impartial investigation into human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir since the 1980s
He emphasized the need for a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to examine violations by both the State and non-state actors, aiming at healing intergenerational trauma.
6. Political Reactions
The verdict’s aftermath saw a spectrum of reactions from political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed it as a ‘resounding declaration of hope, progress, and unity,’ emphasizing a positive outlook for the future, leaders like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti expressed disappointment. This contrast reflects the diverse opinions and sentiments within the region.
Moreover, Ghulam Nabi Azad termed the verdict ‘sad and unfortunate’ but acknowledged the necessity of accepting it. In essence, this divergence of opinions highlights the complex socio-political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir, where sentiments and loyalties are deeply intertwined with historical and cultural narratives
7. Election Commission’s Directive
The Supreme Court’s directive to the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024 adds a crucial dimension to the post-verdict scenario.
This move aims to restore democratic governance and normalcy in the Union Territory, emphasizing the importance of people’s participation in shaping their political destiny.
8. Justice Kaul’s Separate Order
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul issued a separate ruling during the proceedings, adding another layer to the complex legal terrain. His call for an impartial investigation into human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir since the 1980s and the recommendation to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Committee underscored the multifaceted challenges associated with the region.
9. Political Reactions
The verdict’s aftermath saw a spectrum of reactions from political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed it as a ‘resounding declaration of hope, progress, and unity,’ emphasizing a positive outlook for the future, leaders like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti expressed disappointment, reflecting the diverse opinions and sentiments within the region.
Moreover, Ghulam Nabi Azad termed the verdict ‘sad and unfortunate’ but acknowledged the necessity of accepting it. This divergence of opinions highlights the complex socio-political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir, where sentiments and loyalties are deeply intertwined with historical and cultural narratives
10. Election Commission’s Directive
The Supreme Court’s directive to the Election Commission of India to conduct elections in Jammu and Kashmir by September 2024 adds a crucial dimension to the post-verdict scenario. T
his move aims to restore democratic governance and normalcy in the Union Territory, emphasizing the importance of people’s participation in shaping their political destiny.
11. Implications for Human Rights and Reconciliation
Justice Kaul’s emphasis on establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Committee and an impartial investigation into human rights abuses reflects the region’s broader concern for justice and reconciliation.
Additionally, the call to address intergenerational trauma and acknowledge violations committed by state and non-state actors underscores the intricate task of healing historical wounds.
Furthermore, as Jammu and Kashmir move forward, implementing such recommendations will be crucial in fostering a climate of trust and rebuilding fractured relationships.
Ultimately, acknowledging past wrongs and a commitment to reconciliation are essential steps towards the region’s sustainable and inclusive future
12. Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Activism
The Supreme Court’s verdict also sheds light on constitutional interpretation and the judiciary’s role in interpreting and safeguarding the Constitution.
As the justices navigated complex legal questions, addressing the temporal nature of Article 370, the validity of Presidential rule, and the power to reorganize states, they provided crucial insights into constitutional principles.
Moreover, the decision not to rule on the validity of Presidential rule in 2018 raises questions about the limits of executive power during exceptional circumstances.
This aspect of the judgment highlights the delicate balance between executive authority and judicial oversight, emphasizing the need for clarity in constitutional matters.
13. The Future Trajectory
The Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 has undoubtedly altered the trajectory of Jammu and Kashmir’s future. Notably, the validation of the Centre’s decision provides a legal foundation for the region’s reintegration into the Indian Union, signaling a departure from the special status it held for decades.
Furthermore, the directive to conduct elections by September 2024 indicates a commitment to restoring democratic governance. However, the political landscape in the region remains complex, with diverse opinions and historical grievances shaping the contours of public sentiment.
As Justice Kaul suggested, establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Committee introduces a critical element of transitional justice. Consequently, implementing such measures will address historical injustices, foster reconciliation, and build a foundation for sustained peace and development.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict on Article 370 marks a significant chapter in the history of Jammu and Kashmir.
While validating the Centre’s decision, the court’s directive for elections and Justice Kaul’s call for reconciliation committees underscore the complex dynamics in shaping the region’s future.
Furthermore, as the political landscape evolves, the impact of this landmark judgment will continue to unfold, influencing the destiny of Jammu and Kashmir for years to come
.webp)
