Article 370: SC verdict shows that when it matters, judiciary upholds the sanctity of Indian state over activism

In a landmark judgement whose impact may outlive the issue it was delivered upon, a five-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision undertaken by the Narendra Modi government in 2019 to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution. Delivering its ruling on a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s decision, the apex court led by chief justice DY Chandrachud and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant validated the Centre’s move in a unanimous decision and held that Article 370 was a transitory provision enacted at wartime and it in no way conferred internal sovereignty on the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, the court adjudicated, that concurrence of the state government was not required to apply the Indian Constitution, which reigns supreme. This is also a validation of the fact that a nation can only have one Constitution. The apex court was clear in its wording and verdict that the state of Jammu and Kashmir did not retain any sovereignty when it chose to access the Union of India in 1949 and asked the government of India to hold elections in the state by September 2024. “We hold Jammu and Kashmir does not have any internal sovereignty after accession to Union of India. By issuance of proclamation, para 8 of Instrument of Accession ceases to exist. Neither Constitutional text states that Jammu and Kashmir had any internal sovereignty. The proclamation by Yuvraj Karan Singh in 1949 and the Constitution thereafter cements it. That the State of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India is evident from Article 1 of the Constitution of India,” the court said in its ruling, according to parts of the judgement published by a report in Bar and Bench. Another key part of the ruling touched upon the power of the President of India to abrogate the arrangement that was meant as an interim measure and for temporary purpose. The apex court held that the President of India had every power to issue the order to abrogate the provision without seeking the nod of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. “The exercise of power by the President under Article 370(1)(d) to issue CO 272 is not mala fide. The President in exercise of power under Article 370(3) can unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist. The President did not have to secure the concurrence of the Government of the State or Union Government acting on behalf of the State Government under the second proviso to Article 370(1)(d) while applying all the provisions of the Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir because such an exercise of power has the same effect as an exercise of power under Article 370(3) for which the concurrence or collaboration with the State Government was not required,” held the court. This virtually nullifies any chance of any government restoring the contentious provision of bestowing special status to the state, no matter what Opposition parties such as Congress claim. With the verdict delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court has sealed nearly all possible venues of restoration of Article 370. As commentator Akhilesh Mishra writes on X (formerly Twitter), “The way to change/amend Article 370 was through provision Article 370(3).  This could be done by Presidential order and was thus a relatively simple process. So a future government could have restored same language of Article 370 as existed before 5th August 2019. However, with CO 273 upheld, the way Article 370 now exists, there is no clause Article 370(3). Therefore NO CLUASE (sic) OR LEEWAY exists for any future government to use the 370 route to restore it. If at all any future government is so insistent, it will need Article 368 route — which 2/3rd majority in both houses of Parliament — and concurrence by over 50% of state assemblies.” Among a plethora of takeaways from the judgement, the most significant one is this. The unity of the nation holds supreme. There can be no compromise with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. It is the core edifice of the Indian nation-state and every part of its democratic structure, including the judiciary, works in conjunction with the legislature and the executive in upholding this core premise, regardless of ideological inclinations. This is instructive because a section of the Indian Opposition, civil activists, media and advocacy groups seemingly believe that the Supreme Court can be used as a tool to win political and ideological fights that these forces appear unable to win on the electoral and ideological battlefronts. This verdict shows that Indian judiciary cannot be browbeaten into acting against the nation’s interests and that when it matters, the judiciary upholds the sanctity of Indian state over activism. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News, India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.