29-08-2023 : During a recent session, the Supreme Court took a pivotal step in the ongoing discourse surrounding the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) as a state. The court directed the Attorney General (AG) and Solicitor General (SG) to seek guidance from the Central government regarding the existence of a timeframe for the reconstitution of J&K as a state. This imperative query was raised while the Solicitor General was presenting his arguments in defense of the annulment of Article 370.
A five-judge Constitution bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, found itself immersed in the nuanced intricacies of the matter. The court tasked the AG and SG with the responsibility of shedding light on the specific timeline envisaged by the government for the reinstatement of statehood to J&K. The pressing question posed to the Central government was whether the Parliament possesses the authority to transform an existing Indian state into a Union territory.
In response to these inquiries, SG Mehta responded that the transformation of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory was not intended to be a permanent arrangement. He reassured the court that the territory would eventually regain its status as a state once conditions returned to normalcy. This assurance resonated with the court as it continued to navigate the complexities surrounding the abrogation of Article 370 and the subsequent division of J&K into two Union territories.
The current proceedings stem from a series of petitions challenging the validity of the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. Within this context, the SG elucidated the efforts undertaken by the government to address these concerns. He emphasized that the government’s commitment to restoring J&K’s statehood was underscored by the statements made in the legislative assembly. Moreover, the SG acknowledged the importance of national integration and asserted that the government’s efforts were primarily focused on the betterment of the people.
However, the Supreme Court interjected, emphasizing the significance of restoring democracy as an integral aspect of the process. The court underscored the imperative of avoiding mismanagement or disorder during the course of restoring normalcy to the region.
Defending the Centre’s decision to revoke Article 370, SG Mehta articulated the positive outcomes that followed. He pointed out that the local body elections, held in 2020 for the first time in decades, proceeded without any disruption. Additionally, he highlighted the establishment of new hotels, reflecting the growth and development underway in the region. The SG also spotlighted the transformation of youth who were once employed by groups hostile to India. These young individuals are now gainfully employed, signifying a constructive shift in their trajectories.
The SG elucidated the policy considerations underlying the decision to reorganize J&K into two Union territories. Drawing parallels to the division of Punjab in 1966 to create Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, he expounded on the broader vision. This move, according to Mehta, opens the door to future statehood. He emphasized that such restructuring involves careful consideration of policies to integrate the youth into mainstream activities, thereby ensuring their holistic development.
The SG also underscored the importance of employment as a fundamental right to life. He noted that despite living in J&K for extended periods, individuals from outside the region were unable to acquire property due to Article 35A. This situation effectively curtailed investment opportunities. The court acknowledged that Article 35A grants special rights to residents while potentially infringing on the rights of non-residents.
In a sweeping statement, Mehta emphasized that the entire Indian Constitution now extends its reach to J&K, bringing its residents on par with the rest of the country. He contended that this alignment has enabled the applicability of welfare legislations, thereby enhancing the region’s integration with the national framework.
The SG lamented that for years, people were led to believe that Article 370 was a privilege that safeguarded their progress. This perception, he asserted, was detrimental, preventing true progress. Notably, key political parties continue to defend Article 370, including Article 35A, in court.
SG Mehta highlighted the encouraging developments that have unfolded following the Centre’s decision. Tourist inflow has increased, with 16 lakh tourists visiting the region. The growth in tourism has concurrently led to the establishment of new hotels, providing employment opportunities for a substantial portion of the population.