In a significant development, the Supreme Court addressed the ongoing debate surrounding the abrogation of Article 370 and the division of Jammu & Kashmir into two Union territories. On August 28, 2019, despite initial opposition from the central government, the Supreme Court initiated proceedings related to these matters.
The apex court underscored that the Constitution does not impose restrictions on the President's authority to reorganize a state. This observation came in response to arguments questioning whether the reorganization of a state's boundaries could occur during a period of President's rule. The court highlighted that the Constitution empowers the President to temporarily suspend specific constitutional provisions tied to state authority, in order to uphold the objectives of a presidential proclamation.
During the hearing, differing arguments were presented. One contention was that the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories couldn't have happened during President's rule. It was also asserted that Article 370's abrogation required the consent of the Jammu and Kashmir legislative assembly, as this power was vested solely in it. The court responded that such broad assertions might not hold true, considering the complexity of various situations. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, stated that attempting to confine the President's power to alter state boundaries under Article 3 and 4 might not be legally sound, given the diverse circumstances that can arise.
ALSO READ: Jairam Ramesh raises concerns over Central Government's handling of 'Deemed Forests' issue
Article 356 of the Constitution pertains to the proclamation of President's rule when the constitutional machinery within a state is compromised. Article 356(1)(c) specifically grants the President the authority to enact provisions necessary to achieve the goals of the proclamation, even if that entails suspending parts of the Constitution related to state bodies or authorities.
The Constitution Bench highlighted that Article 356 aims to preserve the structure of the Constitution and safeguard the state's constitutional framework. It further challenged arguments that the President's authority could be limited during Article 356's proclamation, asserting that the Constitution explicitly allows the President to temporarily shift the state legislature's powers to Parliament, while also suspending specific constitutional clauses to fulfill the proclamation's intentions.
ALSO READ: AAP Protests Against Alleged Cost Escalation in Dwarka Expressway Construction
Rajeev Dhavan, representing Jammu and Kashmir People's Conference, contended that the President's suspension of the requirement for the state's input on reorganization exceeded his powers. However, the court questioned if such limitations could be substantiated within the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to modify the functioning of a state's legislative body under certain circumstances. The hearing also featured senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who argued that the removal of Article 370 required constitutional amendments, a process demanding substantial parliamentary consensus.
The debate stems from a series of petitions, including those filed by members of the National Conference party, Kashmiri citizens, former bureaucrats, and various organizations. These petitions challenge the annulment of Article 370 and the reorganization of Jammu & Kashmir into Union territories. The Supreme Court's involvement began in August 2019, despite opposition from the central government citing international and cross-border implications tied to Article 370.
The court's recent focus on presidential powers and its interpretation of the Constitution's scope is poised to influence the ongoing deliberations on the contentious Article 370 issue.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash