The ongoing Supreme Court hearing on petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution continued on its sixth day, with senior advocates presenting intricate arguments concerning the revocation of special status for the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, delved deep into the constitutional nuances surrounding the abrogation decision. Over 20 petitions were filed in response to the central government’s 2019 move to abrogate Article 370, which led to the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and the subsequent reorganization of the state into two Union Territories.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Jammu and Kashmir People Conference, opened the arguments on the day by addressing the misunderstanding regarding the status of the merger agreement. Dhavan contended that the instrument of accession dealt with external sovereignty, while internal sovereignty was retained. He emphasized the significance of Article 370, comparing it to a substitute for the standstill or merger agreement.
Dhavan further argued against the use of Article 356(1)(c) during President’s rule, highlighting the importance of adhering to the mandatory provisions of Articles 3 and 4 for the preservation of federal structure. He questioned the validity of the extension of the President’s rule and the invocation of Articles 3 and 4 during that period.
In response to Dhavan’s arguments, Justice Sanjiv Khanna emphasized the distinction between the existence and abuse of power, cautioning against broad propositions. Dhavan asserted that Parliament couldn’t substitute the legislature of a state and challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the creation of two Union Territories for Jammu and Kashmir.
Advocate Dushyant Dave, also representing the petitioners, argued that Article 370 was drafted with a specific purpose and should not have been repeatedly exercised over time. He questioned the exercise of power by the President and called it a “fraud on the Constitution.” Dave warned against using the Constitution to achieve political objectives and raised concerns about the impact of the decision on democracy and national interests.
The hearings also brought up discussions on the importance of safeguarding diversity and autonomy within the Indian federal structure. The counsel reiterated that the autonomy of states was a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution and shouldn’t be compromised.
With arguments from both senior advocates, the bench rose for the day, setting a timeline for the petitioners to complete their arguments by August 22. As the Supreme Court continues to explore the intricacies of the abrogation of Article 370, the case remains a pivotal point in Indian constitutional history.
(Inputs from Bar and Bench)
Anzer Ayoob is the Founder and Chief Editor to The Chenab Times