In a significant development, the Indian government is set to make a “positive statement” regarding the restoration of statehood to the region of Jammu and Kashmir. This announcement comes in response to queries posed by the Supreme Court of India during ongoing hearings related to the revocation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The revocation in 2019 led to the reorganization of the region into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The Supreme Court had emphasized the importance of restoring democracy and sought a “timeframe” for the reinstatement of the statehood. The court questioned whether it was permissible to convert a state into a union territory and the feasibility of carving out a union territory from a state. Additionally, the court inquired about the timeline for conducting elections.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, responded affirmatively to the court’s concerns. He cited instances of states like Assam, Tripura, and Arunachal Pradesh where transitions from union territories to states had occurred. Mehta referred to statements made by Union Minister Amit Shah in the Lok Sabha and assured the court that “union territory” status was not permanent. He pledged to provide a positive statement on the matter within the next two days, affirming that Ladakh would remain a union territory.
While acknowledging national security considerations that were raised when Article 370 was revoked, the Supreme Court highlighted the imperative of reestablishing democracy in the region. The court’s Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, noted that while security concerns were valid, the restoration of democracy remained a crucial goal.
The government’s decision to revoke Article 370 in 2019 had been met with substantial opposition from political activists and opposition leaders. The move had resulted in the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories. The government had assured critics that statehood would be reinstated once normalcy returned to the region.
During the ongoing hearings, the government informed the court that the present status of Jammu and Kashmir was not permanent and that statehood would eventually be restored. The Solicitor General referred to recent local elections in Jammu and Kashmir as evidence of progress towards reinstating statehood.
While the court agreed with the government’s assertion that the Jammu and Kashmir constitution was subordinate to the national constitution, it appeared to diverge from the government’s perspective regarding the status of the erstwhile state’s Constituent Assembly. The court questioned whether the assembly was indeed capable of enacting laws.
The government had also asserted that there was no “constitutional fraud” involved in the revocation of Article 370. The Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that due process had been followed, dismissing allegations of wrongdoing.
However, the court reminded the government of the need to justify the procedures undertaken for the abrogation of Article 370. It stressed that the ends could not be used to justify the means.
Opponents of the repeal of Article 370 contended that the provision could not be abrogated since the term of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, which was required to provide assent for such a move, had ended in 1957. They argued that Article 370 had acquired a “permanent” status after that point.
As the government prepares to make its statement on the restoration of statehood, the Supreme Court’s deliberations continue, shaping the future course of Jammu and Kashmir’s political status.
Sources By Agencies
