Abrogation of Article 370 Update

 

Subramanium: The fact that indian constitution does not mention J&K Constitution at all is not correct since many articles states that it does not apply to J&K. Article 356 is an emergent provision and orders under it cannot be irreversible at all. That is the point here. Article 370 cannot be used for self destruction and it has been clarified in judgments of this court.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna: What we have seen is that Article 370 is very flexible in itself. Article 370 itself says it can be modified to make the Indian Constitution applicable as it is made applicable to the other parts of the country.

Subramanium: J&K Constitution can be overturned or repealed by their legislature but not by the parliament. It is flexible but if decisions are taken without a bilateral consensus or discussion with the state assembly, (it) is not justified.

Updated at:9th Aug, 2023 at 3:17 PM

which conferred special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant is hearing the matter.

Over 20 petitions are pending before the Supreme Court challenging the Central government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which resulted in the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. The erstwhile State was subsequently bifurcated into two Union Territories.

When the matters were listed in March 2020, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had decided not to refer the batch of petitions to a seven-judge Constitution Bench, despite some petitioners seeking a reference.

On August 2, the top court began hearing the matter with a question to the petitioners about whether the Constitution makers and Article itself envisaged the provision as a permanent or temporary one.

The Court sought to know whether the Article was envisaged as a permanent provision merely because the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), which was empowered to recommend the deletion of the provision, ceased to exist in 1957.

On August 4, the top court had asked whether the Article would become part of the basic structure of the Constitution if it is accepted that Article 370 of the Constitution became permanent when the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was dissolved in 1957.

During the last hearing, the Supreme Court remarked that in a Constitutional democracy like India, the opinion of people on public issues is sought through established institutions and not referendums as with the case of Brexit in the United Kingdom.