On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to deliver its eagerly awaited judgment on the constitutional validity of the Central government\’s decision to revoke Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
This pivotal case, encompassing 23 petitions challenging the government\’s actions, has undergone a thorough review by the Supreme Court over an extended period. After 16 days of exhaustive hearings and compelling arguments from both sides, the court reserved its judgment on September 5.
A five-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, is scheduled to announce the verdict on Monday. The decision holds significant weight, as it will ascertain whether the abrogation of Article 370 aligns with constitutional provisions and legal principles.
Throughout the proceedings, 18 lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Dushyant Dave, and Rajiv Dhawan, presented arguments challenging the validity of the government\’s decision. On the opposing side, the Centre, represented by Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and other legal experts, defended its actions as entirely logical and appropriate.
Center\’s Argument: The Centre argued that the dissolution of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly automatically resulted in the creation of the Legislative Assembly. According to their contention, this empowers the Centre to take action with the consent of Parliament when the Legislative Assembly is adjourned during periods of President\’s rule. They emphasized that this process adheres to the Constitution and does not violate the federal structure between the central and state governments.
Petitioners\’ Argument: The petitioners accused the Centre of arbitrarily disregarding the state\’s rights and constitutionally enshrined Legislative Assembly. They argued that obtaining the consent of the people, represented by their elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly, was a fundamental requirement before dividing the state. Bypassing this crucial step, they asserted, amounted to an encroachment upon the state\’s autonomy and undermined fundamental principles of Centre-State relations.
Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have been \”deprived of representation\” in both the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha for four years. They argued that this denial of their elected representatives amounted to a strangulation of democracy in the region.