Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noted that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is not unique, highlighting similar challenges faced by Punjab and the Northeast. The court questioned the rationale behind the state’s bifurcation in August 2019.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also raised concerns about preventing potential misuse of the authority to bifurcate a state once it’s granted to the Central government. This point prompted a discussion on the possibility of resolving the issue of bifurcation through parliamentary means.
On the 12th day of hearings for a series of petitions contesting the revocation of Article 370, the Central government had asserted that Jammu and Kashmir was a unique case.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated, “If Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh were to undergo bifurcation, the considerations would be different.”
Also Read: 30 August, 2023: Numerology Predictions As Per Your Lucky Number
Justice SK Kaul, a member of the five-judge constitutional bench led by Justice Chandrachud, highlighted that the nation comprises numerous states with shared borders.
In response, Mr. Mehta argued that not all neighboring countries are “friendly,” emphasizing the necessity to integrate Jammu and Kashmir considering its historical context and present circumstances, including “stone pelting, strikes, deaths, and terror attacks.” Chief Justice Chandrachud also shared his perspective on the matter.
He questioned, “Once the power is granted to the Union for every state in India, how can we ensure that the potential misuse they are concerned about won’t occur?”
Also Read: Shashi Tharoor Syncs His Words With External Affairs Minister On China Map Row
“It’s not an isolated situation,” Justice Kaul added. “We’ve witnessed challenging times in the northern border state of Punjab. Similarly, certain states in the northeastern region… If a situation arises where each of these states encounters such issues…” he continued.
“Does the parliament possess the authority to transform an existing Indian state into a Union Territory?” Chief Justice Chandrachud inquired.
The court additionally expressed that even if the Constituent Assembly’s role concerning Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, was recommendatory in nature, that doesn’t imply it can be disregarded by the President of India. During a previous hearing, the court emphasized that the government must substantiate the procedure it undertook to revoke Article 370, as the “end justifying the means” assumption couldn’t be presumed.
