12-December-2023-Editorial

SC VERDICT ON ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370

The recent Supreme Court verdict on the Union government’s move to amend Article 370 has sparked debates on the abrogation of special status in Jammu and Kashmir. The judgment reaffirms the constitutional validity of revoking Article 370, questioning the state’s sovereignty and upholding the temporary nature of the provision.

Key Points of the Recent Supreme Court Judgment:

J&K’s Sovereignty: The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 370 did not necessitate a merger agreement, declaring that J&K had no sovereignty to surrender.

Temporary Nature of Article 370: The court justified the temporary status of Article 370 by placing it among the temporary and transitional provisions in the Constitution.

Constitutional Validity Under President’s Rule: The judgment acknowledged the President’s power to make irreversible changes during President’s Rule, subject to judicial and constitutional scrutiny.

Inoperability of J&K Constitution: The court declared the Constitution of J&K inoperative, asserting the supremacy of the Indian Constitution in the region.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission: The Supreme Court recommended the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.

Historical Context of Article 370:

Special Status of J&K: Article 370, introduced in 1949, granted Jammu and Kashmir special privileges, allowing it to draft its constitution and limiting legislative powers of the Indian Parliament.

Instrument of Accession: The Instrument of Accession, not a merger agreement, maintained J&K’s autonomy, making it unique in its relationship with the Union.

Article 35A: Stemming from Article 370, Article 35A empowered J&K to define permanent residents and grant special rights, now declared null and void.

Key Changes Brought by the 2019 Order:

Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019: Replaced the 1954 Presidential Order, leading to the reorganization of J&K into two Union Territories: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Abolishment of Special Status: J&K lost its separate constitution, flag, and anthem. Citizens no longer have dual citizenship, and all laws applicable to the rest of India now extend to J&K.

Fundamental Rights and Legal Frameworks: J&K citizens now enjoy Fundamental Rights, and the Indian Penal Code replaces the Ranbir Penal Code. Article 35A becomes void.

Legal Challenges and Federalism Concerns:

Constitutional Challenges: The use of a Presidential Order to alter Article 370 faced challenges for bypassing constitutional amendment requirements.

Federalism Issues: The Instrument of Accession, akin to a treaty, posed challenges to diluting autonomy without constitutional amendments, raising federalism concerns.

Signs of Peace and Security in J&K:

Reduction in Stone Pelting and Militancy: Increased security presence resulted in a decline in stone-pelting incidents, militant activities, and injuries to security forces.

Arrests and Improved Law and Order: Arrests of over-ground workers increased, and law and order incidents reduced, indicating improved security conditions.

Mitigating Challenges and Ensuring Reconciliation: A comprehensive outreach program, focusing on education, employment, and employability, along with adherence to non-violence, Gandhian principles, and inclusivity, can pave the way for reconciliation and lasting peace.

Conclusion:

The recent Supreme Court judgment and the aftermath of Article 370’s abrogation have significant implications for Jammu and Kashmir. While the legal challenges persist, signs of reduced unrest and improved security offer glimpses of stability. The government’s role in addressing socio-economic aspects, embracing reconciliation, and respecting the unique cultural identity of Kashmir is crucial for a lasting solution to the complex issue. Balancing constitutional imperatives and regional aspirations remains a delicate task, requiring a nuanced and inclusive approach.