Day 10 of Article 370 Hearing: Union Govt Says J&K’s Accession Was Not Unique
New Delhi: Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta on Thursday, August 24, told the five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the challenges to reading down of Article 370, that Jammu and Kashmir was not the only princely state with its own constitution.
He claimed that 62 princely states had their own constitutions in 1939. He added that many princely states did not sign instruments of merger.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud wanted to be apprised of how many out of the 562 states did not execute merger agreements. He wanted to be convinced whether the execution of merger agreement was not quintessential to the acceptance of final sovereignty of India.
Both the CJI and Justice Sanjiv Khanna found the SG’s submission on the question of sovereignty insufficient. They asked him to answer the petitioners’ claim that despite its integration with India and surrender of external sovereignty, the internal sovereignty of the state remained.
In addition, Justice Khanna didn't find Mehta's argument of equating the state Constituent Assembly with the state legislative assembly persuasive. He said that the bench is avoiding a dialogue at this stage with him on this issue, because it wanted him to complete the list of dates.
Outlining the history of the accession of J&K, Mehta claimed that the moment the accession is complete, the sovereignty gets lost as it gets subsumed with the larger sovereignty.
Mehta claimed that after the reading down of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, the J&K residents now enjoy a large number of fundamental rights and other rights that they were previously not entitled to.
According to Mehta, the significance of reading down Article 370 lies in the fact that it ended the “psychological duality” which existed in the minds of the J&K people. He also claimed that Article 370 was an obstacle preventing them from enjoying the benefits of the Union government’s welfare schemes.
Earlier, Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani had submitted to the bench that the Union government enjoyed plenary power during the President’s Rule and that it followed due process while passing the Presidential Orders revoking the erstwhile state’s special status.
The AG also sought to impress upon the bench that it ought to defer to the wisdom of Parliament when it comes to the reorganisation of border states like J&K.
According to the AG, Article 370 was designed to aid the constitutional integration process on the same line as it happened with other states. He added that its continuance over a period could not be seen as a distortion of its original purpose.
When the AG claimed that Article 370’s objective was the state’s constitutional integration with the Union, the CJI argued, suggesting that ends cannot justify the means and that means should be consistent with the ends.
The AG, without elaborating, quoted Abraham Lincoln on balancing and losing the nation, and preserving the constitution. He answered that a limb can be amputated to save a life, but a life is never sacrificed to save a limb.
This article went live on August twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty three, at forty minutes past seven in the evening.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
