The Supreme Court of India witnessed a day of fervent legal arguments as the hearing on Article 370, which pertains to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, continued for the 13th day. The courtroom, presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, saw intense debates among legal experts presenting their viewpoints on various aspects of the contentious issue.
The proceedings kicked off with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud addressing the courtroom. He announced that Justice BR Gavai was participating remotely due to conjunctivitis and clarified that mobile connectivity issues within the complex had been resolved. Chandrachud also warned attendees about a phishing attack on the court’s website, advising caution in online transactions.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns about the suspension of Prof. Bhat and sought the court’s intervention. In response, Chief Justice Chandrachud agreed to examine the matter, with Attorney General Tushar Mehta indicating that time would be needed to provide instructions on the issue.
Representing the Central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta took the floor and declared the government’s readiness to hold elections in the Union Territory. Mehta highlighted progress in updating the voter list and mentioned the successful completion of district development elections. Drawing attention to improvements in security, Mehta noted a decline of 45.2% in terrorism instances and a significant 90% reduction in infiltration between 2018 and 2023.
Mehta went on to emphasize the reduction of law and order issues, specifically stone pelting incidents, by an impressive 97%. He added that security personnel casualties had seen a substantial drop of 65%. Turning the spotlight on the Union Territory status, Mehta revealed substantial investments exceeding Rs 2,000 crores aimed at transitioning towards full statehood. He underscored various e-initiatives initiated for development.
In response to questions about the timeline for achieving full statehood, Mehta stated that there was no precise timeframe, and elections were to be decided by the State and Election Commission. Meanwhile, Kapil Sibal raised ethical concerns about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. He highlighted the suspension of around 5,000 people under house arrest, suggesting that this prevented demonstrations or protests. Sibal also drew attention to the suspension of internet services and the imposition of Section 144, which he argued hindered public gatherings.
Responding to Sibal’s concerns, Solicitor General Mehta acknowledged the issues raised. He argued that while some limitations existed, significant advancements had been made in various areas of governance and development.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve brought historical context to the fore, contextualizing Article 370 as a product of political compromises. He argued that the provision was a response to the unique circumstances of its time, and the power vested in the President was indicative of the region’s integration into the Indian Union. Salve explored the implications of concurrence and consultation in different contexts, highlighting their roles within the constitutional framework.
Rakesh Dwivedi, in counterarguments, highlighted the presumption of validity in favor of laws passed by Parliament, asserting that petitioners must prove their exclusive interpretation. Dwivedi delved into the concept of constituent power held by the President and emphasized the need for balance between executive and judicial roles. The arguments also revolved around the modification of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution and the role of the President in the exercise of power.
As the day’s proceedings came to a close, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud reflected on the complex dynamics of Article 370 and the intricate balance of powers. The courtroom observed an intellectually charged day of discussions, with legal luminaries presenting their nuanced viewpoints on a matter of profound constitutional significance.
The hearing is set to continue on the following day, providing further opportunities for legal minds to deliberate on the complexities and implications of Article 370, which continues to captivate national attention.
Here is a detailed breakdown of the arguments presented during the 13th day of the Article 370 hearing:
CJI DY Chandrachud:
- The hearing began with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud presiding over the bench.
- He informed the courtroom that Justice BR Gavai was absent due to conjunctivitis but was participating in the proceedings remotely.
- The Chief Justice noted that mobile connectivity issues in the additional building complex had been resolved.
- He alerted attendees about a phishing attack on the court’s website and urged caution regarding online transactions.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal:
- Kapil Sibal raised the matter of the suspension of Prof. Bhat, seeking the court’s attention.
- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud responded affirmatively, permitting the matter to be examined.
- Attorney General (AG) Tushar Mehta stated that they would require some time to provide instructions on the matter.
SG Tushar Mehta:
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta began his arguments by stating that the Central government was prepared for elections in the Union Territory.
- He highlighted progress in updating the voter list and mentioned successful district development elections.
- Mehta noted that there had been a reduction of 45.2% in instances of terrorism and 90% in infiltration between 2018 and 2023.
- He also emphasized a decline of 97% in law and order issues, particularly stone pelting cases.
- The Solicitor General stressed the reduction in security personnel casualties by 65%, citing improvements in the region’s security situation.
SG Tushar Mehta on Union Territory Status and Development:
- Mehta discussed the Union Territory status, clarifying that it was a temporary phase.
- He detailed investments for transitioning into a full state and highlighted investment proposals totaling Rs 78,000 crore.
- The actual investment in this regard was Rs 2,153 crores.
- Mehta mentioned various e-initiatives aimed at development and improving conditions.
SG Tushar Mehta on Elections and Governance:
- Responding to the Union Territory status, Mehta indicated that a specific timeline for achieving full statehood could not be provided.
- He acknowledged significant tourist visits and highlighted steps taken by the Central government.
- Mehta clarified that the decision to hold elections rested with the State and Election Commission.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s Concerns:
- Kapil Sibal expressed ethical concerns regarding the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
- He pointed out that around 5,000 people were under house arrest, suggesting that this could prevent demonstrations or protests.
- Sibal raised concerns about the suspension of internet services and Section 144.
- He argued that the absence of public gatherings made it easy to claim the region was peaceful.
CJI DY Chandrachud’s Response to Sibal:
- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud acknowledged Sibal’s concerns.
- He emphasized that the issue at hand was a constitutional one, and policy decisions should not be mixed up with constitutional questions.
- Chandrachud noted that the constitutional angle would be examined rather than policy decisions.
Attorney General (AG) on Presidential Powers:
- The Attorney General (AG) began by discussing the President’s powers in relation to Article 370.
- He stated that the President was required to follow a process similar to the non-legislative functions of the Constituent Assembly.
- The AG emphasized the need to consider the historical context and complexities when determining the President’s powers.
AG on Doctrine of Impossibility and President’s Role:
- The AG argued that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir required a pragmatic approach, considering both internal and external challenges.
- He questioned whether it was possible to apply a mathematical formula to such complex situations.
- The AG highlighted the doctrine of impossibility and suggested that the President’s role could not be paralyzed in the face of challenges.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve’s Interpretation:
- Senior Advocate Harish Salve presented a historical contextualization of Article 370.
- He argued that the provision emerged from political compromises and addressed the peculiar circumstances of the time.
- Salve emphasized that the President’s role was pivotal and questioned the necessity of concurrence or consultation in different contexts.
Harish Salve on Presidential Powers and Intent:
- Salve highlighted the distinction between concurrence and consultation, emphasizing their relevance in different situations.
- He pointed out that certain aspects of the Instrument of Accession required consultation, while others necessitated concurrence.
- Salve questioned whether the President’s powers should be restricted when dealing with matters that affect the sovereignty of the nation.
Harish Salve on Article 370’s Significance:
- Salve argued that Article 370 was unique due to the underlying political compromise.
- He contended that the provision couldn’t be solely interpreted through a legalistic lens; its essence was rooted in historical and political considerations.
- Salve reiterated that the President’s power was indicative of the region’s integration and the need to address complex realities.
CJI DY Chandrachud on Presidential Powers:
- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud engaged in a discussion with Salve regarding the President’s powers.
- He questioned whether the power to make modifications in certain areas could be applied to the abrogation of Article 370.
- Chandrachud explored the dichotomy in the requirement of concurrence or consultation, seeking to clarify their applications.
AG’s Perspective on Presidential Powers and Abrogation:
- The AG delved into the distinction between concurrence and consultation in the context of the President’s powers.
- He emphasized that certain matters required concurrence while others needed consultation.
- The AG argued that the President could exercise power under Article 370(3) to address complex situations, even if it meant temporarily departing from established norms.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi’s Counterarguments:
- Rakesh Dwivedi entered the debate, presenting counterarguments to the perspectives discussed.
- Dwivedi emphasized the presumption of validity for laws passed by Parliament, placing the burden of proof on the petitioners.
- He explored the concept of constituent power wielded by the President and called for a balance between executive and judicial roles.
Dwivedi on Presidential Powers and Constitutionality:
- Dwivedi argued that the exercise of power under Article 370 resembled a constituent power, and the court should maintain its role in judicial review.
- He contended that constitutional amendments were irreversible, just as parliamentary decisions could be.
- Dwivedi discussed the President’s prerogative and its implications for the constitutional landscape.
AG on Constitutionality and Sovereignty:
- The AG emphasized the complexity of the situation and the government’s perspective on sovereignty and integrity.
- He discussed the President’s role in the context of the Instrument of Accession, addressing the delicate balance of powers.
- The AG highlighted the need for pragmatism and the consideration of larger national interests in decision-making
Senior Advocate Harish Salve’s Historical Context:
- Harish Salve returned to emphasize the historical context of Article 370 and its creation through political compromises.
- He reiterated that the provision’s essence couldn’t be divorced from the nuanced negotiations of that era.
- Salve examined the dynamics of the President’s powers in relation to the constitutional framework.
CJI DY Chandrachud’s Reflection on Presidential Powers:
- Chief Justice DY Chandrachud questioned whether the power to make modifications within the Indian Constitution extended to the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution.
- He discussed the distinction between provisions that required concurrence and those that needed consultation.
- Chandrachud explored the dynamics of abrogation within the context of Article 370.
CJI’s Reflection on Constitutional Interpretation:
- The Chief Justice reflected on the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the impact of constituent powers.
- He emphasized the significance of historical context and the intricate balance of powers within the constitutional framework.
- Chandrachud explored the nuances of modifications and exceptions and their implications for constitutional interpretation.
Bench Rises and Adjournment:
- The proceedings concluded with the bench rising for the day.
- The court indicated that the hearing would resume on the following day, providing an opportunity for the legal minds to continue their deliberations.
The courtroom witnessed an intellectually charged day as legal luminaries presented their perspectives, paving the way for a deeper understanding of the complex constitutional issues surrounding Article 370. The arguments reflected the intricacies of legal interpretation, historical context, and pragmatic considerations that define the judicial discourse on this pivotal matter. The court adjourned, leaving these weighty arguments to be further deliberated upon in the coming sessions.
The Chenab Times News Desk