New Delhi (Agency): Article 370 once gave Jammu and Kashmir, a former state in India, a unique status. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India said that this article was not about giving unchecked power. Instead, it was a way for the Indian Constitution to connect with the state.
A group of five judges, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heard the issue. Gopal Subramanium, a top lawyer, represented a man named Muzaffar Iqbal Khan. Khan is challenging the decisions from August 5 and 6, 2019. These decisions removed Article 370.
Subramanium said that the Jammu and Kashmir assembly did not want Article 370 removed. Instead, they wanted it to continue. He shared, “Even though the word ‘temporary’ appears in the marginal notes of Article 370 of the Constitution, the resolution passed by the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly said that the Constitution of India must apply with these modifications.” He meant that Article 370 was a way for the two constitutions to communicate.
Subramanium added that Article 370 was not just about power or politics. It was a promise between the people of India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
When discussing how to understand the constitution, Subramanium listed four ways: historical, textual, doctrinal, and structural. No matter which way you choose, he said, the result will be the same. He believed that the 2019 decisions wrongly removed the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
He also spoke about something the Chief Justice mentioned on Tuesday. In democracies, the people’s wishes are known through established groups under the constitution. Subramanium added that the Jammu and Kashmir assembly made it clear they wanted Article 370. They saw it as a common language between the two constitutions.
He asked, “If the Constituent Assembly of J&K, which is the body of people, has taken these proactive steps and we have accepted those proactive steps, can we unilaterally abrogate this arrangement?” By this, he meant that Article 370 was a mutual agreement between J&K and India. Justice Khanna replied that the 1954 Constitution order made the Indian constitution apply to Jammu and Kashmir, but with some changes.
Justice Khanna noted that Article 370 was flexible. He said, “Normally constitutions are flexible with time and space because they’re made once but they last for a longer period.” Subramanium said that only the state legislature could change the J&K constitution.
Another top lawyer, Zafar Shah, began his argument after Subramanium. He will continue on Thursday.
On Tuesday, the court also said there would be no vote like the UK’s Brexit vote on Article 370. In India, the people’s wishes are only known through the established system. Brexit was the UK’s decision to leave the European Union because of national pride, immigration problems, and economic issues.
Many have challenged the removal of Article 370. They also challenge the 2019 act that divided Jammu and Kashmir into two areas. The Supreme Court began looking at these challenges in 2019.