Supreme Court hearing on Article 370 abrogation
The Supreme Court heard the rejoinder arguments of senior advocates on the concluding day of the hearing on constitutional challenges against Article 370, which went on for 16 days.
Supreme Court's Decision
- Submission Opportunity: The Supreme Court has provided an opportunity for lawyers representing petitioners and respondents in the cases related to Article 370's removal and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 to present their arguments in writing.
- Page Limit: The submissions must adhere to a strict page limit, not exceeding two pages, ensuring brevity and focus in the legal arguments presented.
- Time Frame: Lawyers are required to submit these written arguments within the next three days, indicating a prompt and efficient process in addressing the legal challenges surrounding these critical issues.
Issues Discussed in Court
- Constitutionality of Article 370 Removal: The Attorney General and Solicitor General, engaged in a legal debate over the constitutionality of the government's decision to revoke Article 370.
- Validity of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019: The focus was on determining whether this act, which led to the bifurcation of the region into two Union Territories, stood on solid legal ground and aligned with the Indian Constitution.
- Governor and President's Rule Imposition: Lawyers presented arguments regarding the legality and necessity of these interventions in the erstwhile state's governance. The court considered these issues as part of the broader legal context.
Ensuring Constitutional Interpretation
- Rejecting Emotional Interpretations: Mohd Akbar, a leader from the National Conference, emphasized the importance of avoiding emotional interpretations of the Indian Constitution.
- Unique History of Jammu and Kashmir: Unlike other princely states, Jammu and Kashmir was never required to sign a merger agreement with India, which set it apart in terms of its relationship with the Indian Union.
- Sovereignty of India Unchallenged: He argued that the state's distinct history and constitutional framework should be considered when evaluating its relationship with the rest of India, urging a more thoughtful and nuanced examination of the matter.