The Supreme Court has deemed the argument that Article 370 ceased to have effect after 1957 as “unacceptable” during a hearing on the contentious issue. The discussion occurred in the context of challenges against the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, expressed its reservations about the submission that Article 370 no longer held relevance after the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir completed its term in 1957. The argument was presented by senior advocate Dinesh Dwivedi, who appeared on behalf of intervenor Prem Shankar Jha, during the hearing.
Chief Justice Chandrachud voiced skepticism about the contention, highlighting that interpreting Article 370’s continued validity solely based on the end of the constituent assembly’s term could be problematic. The assertion, if accepted, would imply that the Indian Constitution’s application to Jammu and Kashmir froze as of January 26, 1957, leading to potential legal complexities.
The bench stressed the necessity of examining the Indian constituent assembly debates and the intent of the Constitution’s framers when assessing the framing of Article 370. This viewpoint underscores the importance of looking beyond technicalities and understanding the provision’s purpose and relevance within the constitutional framework.
Dwivedi countered the popular view, stating that Article 370 was temporary and ceased to have effect after the enactment of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. He contended that the constituent assembly debates and the turmoil of the time substantiated his perspective. The senior advocate argued that the assembly was established to oversee matters of consultation and concurrence with the state government, making Article 370 a temporary provision.
The hearing delved into the intricacies of the constitutional provisions, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul questioning Dwivedi’s stance. He challenged the notion that Article 370’s continued existence in the Indian Constitution implied its negatory association. The debate highlighted the need for a comprehensive understanding of the legal, historical, and political contexts.
Justice Chandrachud emphasized the role of constituent assembly debates in interpreting the Constitution. He questioned whether the court could ascertain the commitment of India to Jammu and Kashmir based on a speech by a constituent assembly member, regardless of its weight.
The hearing concluded without reaching a definitive conclusion on the complex issue. The matter is set to continue in the subsequent hearing.
The hearing stems from several petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. This act led to the reorganization of the erstwhile state into two union territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The petitions were referred to a Constitution bench in 2019 due to the significance and complexity of the matter.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s stance underscores the need for a comprehensive examination of constitutional provisions and their historical context. The ongoing hearing marks a crucial juncture in determining the interpretation of Article 370 and its implications for the legal and political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir.
Sources By Agencies
