30-08-2023 : In a significant turn of events during the hearing of the Article 370 case, the Supreme Court of India underscored that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was not an isolated instance, drawing parallels to comparable situations in Punjab and the Northeast. The court’s observations on August 30 raised pertinent questions about the necessity of the August 2019 bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir and prompted a broader discussion on the potential misuse of state bifurcation powers conferred upon the Central government.
Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, sought to address the critical concern of safeguarding against the potential misuse of the authority to bifurcate a state once vested with the Central government. This deliberation led to a contemplation of whether the matter of bifurcation could have been more appropriately deliberated and resolved by the parliament itself.
As the hearing entered its twelfth day, a series of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 were under consideration by a five-judge constitutional bench led by Justice Chandrachud. The Central government had previously contended that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was uniquely distinct, warranting the unprecedented measures taken in August 2019.
However, the justices, including Justice SK Kaul, pointed out that the nation’s history includes instances where other states with borders had encountered challenging circumstances. The mention of Punjab and the Northeast as examples of regions that have confronted similar scenarios underscored the court’s belief that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir wasn’t entirely singular in nature.
In response to the government’s argument that the unique circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir warranted special measures due to security concerns such as stone pelting, strikes, deaths, and terror attacks, Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized the need to ensure that such powers would not be prone to misuse. He posed the question of how the Union’s power to intervene in any Indian state could be safeguarded against the misuse of authority.
Justice Kaul expanded on this viewpoint, indicating that challenges faced by other states, such as Punjab’s struggles with its northern border and certain states in the northeast, could also potentially merit similar interventions in the future. The court’s concerns seemed to revolve around the principle of equity and uniformity in the application of such powers, regardless of the region in question.
Moreover, the court highlighted the role of the Constituent Assembly and its recommendatory nature with regards to Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The court asserted that even if the Constituent Assembly’s role was only advisory, it did not necessarily grant unchecked authority to the President of India to override its provisions. This emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal procedures even in times of policy change.
The overarching sentiment of the hearing was that the uniqueness of Jammu and Kashmir’s situation did not necessarily warrant an exceptional treatment outside the established constitutional framework. The court’s stance indicated a commitment to upholding the principles of justice, equity, and adherence to established legal processes, while delving into the complex questions surrounding the abrogation of Article 370.