The arguments against the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted Jammu and Kashmir unique rights, will be heard by the Supreme Court on December 11. On September 5, a bench of the Indian Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, was tasked with considering a number of petitions that contested the central government’s decision to revoke Article 370 and divide the state into two union territories.
After the State Constitution was framed and the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1957, the petitioners contended, Article 370 took on a permanent nature. Key concerns regarding the legitimacy of the abrogation process were raised by senior attorney Kapil Sibal, who was representing one of the petitioners. Sibal emphasised that Article 370 was not covered by Article 368, which deals with Parliament’s power to change the Constitution.
The government argued that the clause was always intended to be temporary and that its abrogation was the final step towards J&K’s full integration with the Union of India. Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and attorney Kanu Agrawal defended the government.
The respondents also highlighted the positive outcomes since the repeal of Article 370 in August 2019 and pointed out that elections were due, indicating a path towards the restoration of full statehood once normalcy was reestablished.
Along with highlighting the benefits of the removal of Article 370 in August 2019 and the impending elections, the responses pointed out a route for the restoration of full statehood after normalcy was restored.
In August 2019, the Indian government made a historic but contentious decision to revoke Article 370 of the Constitution. The Jammu and Kashmir area was awarded special autonomous status under Article 370, which gave it the right to have its own flag, constitution, and considerable internal autonomy—with the exception of defence, communications, and foreign affairs.
The Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Prime Minister Narendra Modi led the central government in a daring move on August 5, 2019, when they revoked Jammu & Kashmir’s special status conferred under Article 370. Additionally, the government divided the state into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, two distinct union territories. Ladakh was made into a union territory without a legislature, although Jammu & Kashmir kept its legislature.
The abrogation was put into effect by a presidential order that was later approved by the Indian Parliament’s two houses. To quell possible disturbance, the decision was accompanied by a major deployment of security officers in the area and a communication lockdown that included limitations on phone and internet services.
The Supreme Court of India received petitions challenging the constitutionality of the government’s actions following the abrogation of Article 370, setting off a flurry of legal challenges.
Advocates claimed it would foster economic growth, provide equal rights for all people, and open the door for further integration of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union. Those who opposed it, however, argued that it went against the essence of federalism and compromised the region’s unique status as stipulated in Article 370.
