The J&K Constituent Assembly opposed the abrogation of Article 370 during the Supreme Court hearing on the matter: Subramanium, Gopal

 Article 370 during the Supreme Court

A number of petitions opposing the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted the former State of Jammu and Kashmir special status, are being heard by the Supreme Court beginning on August 2. Daily hearings have been held by a five-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.


image source - thehindu

On August 8, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal informed the Constitution Bench presided over by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that a unilateral administrative decision cannot alter the conditions of a relationship that is enshrined in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant are also members of the bench that is deliberating on a number of petitions that challenge the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that India is a constitutional democracy and that instead of holding referendums a la Brexit, it seeks the opinions of the public through well-established bodies like the Parliament.

Gopal Subramanian, a seasoned attorney, will make advance filings today, or on August 9 

On August 3, the court questioned if the Basic Structure of the Constitution is being compared to Article 370, which granted Jammu and Kashmir special status.

Understanding Article 370

The court had previously questioned whether the President's authority to revoke Article 370 of the Constitution, which accorded Jammu and Kashmir special status, would still hold sway after the dissolution of the former State's Constituent Assembly on January 26, 1957.

An interpretation clause may not directly change Article 370(3) of the Constitution: Subramanium

To address Subramanium's claim, CJI Chandrachud poses the following question:

You claim that CO 272 directly amends Article 370(3) and that this could not be accomplished by changing an interpretive clause. What if they had followed a court order for adaptation?

In response, Subramanium claims that an adaptation order can only be made when a law from before the Constitution's start date that is still in effect as of the Constitution's start date needs to be brought into compliance with the Constitution.


It is not possible for an interpretation provision to directly change Article 370(3) of the Constitution: Subramanium

Since the constituent assembly and the legislative assembly are fundamentally different bodies, Subramanium argues that the Presidential Order C.O. 272, which states that the phrase "Constituent Assembly of the State" in Article 370 (3) shall be read to mean "Legislative Assembly of the State," is unconstitutional.

He claims that an interpretation provision is unable to accomplish such a direct alteration to Article 370(3) of the Constitution.

Comments

Post a Comment