As the legal discourse surrounding the abrogation of Article 370 intensifies, the Supreme Court continued its proceedings, analyzing the challenges to the erstwhile special status accorded to the region of Jammu and Kashmir. In a recent session, the Chief Justice of India offered insights into the perceived impact of Article 35A on the fundamental rights of the state’s inhabitants.
The courtroom echoed with an exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and advocate Kapil Sibal, with arguments swirling around the nuances of Article 370 and its associated provisions. A key focal point was the contention over whether Article 370 truly served as a self-extinguishing clause, with Mehta asserting that the article adapted over time based on prevailing circumstances. Furthermore, Mehta illuminated that Article 35A, which introduced distinct privileges for the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, effectively diluted fundamental rights such as Article 16(1) and Article 19(1)(f). The solicitor general emphasized that this specific provision had an undeniable impact on the autonomy and liberties of the region’s populace.
Engaging in a robust exchange, Mehta referred to the historical context, highlighting the evolution of Article 370 over the years. He emphasized how the provision had transitioned from recognizing the Maharaja’s authority to being aligned with the Sadr-i-Riyasat. Mehta underlined that, historically, the government had the prerogative to revise and reform Article 370, as permitted by its provisions.
The examination also turned to the application of constitutional amendments in the context of Jammu and Kashmir. Mehta underscored that various amendments were not extended to the state until 2019, indicating a degree of autonomy in the application of certain provisions. He delved into the notion of Article 238 and its implications, exploring how the interactions between Article 238 and the Constituent Assembly further shaped the state’s constitutional landscape.
As the hearing continued, the court scrutinized various dimensions of Article 370 and its impact on the region’s governance. The discourse encompassed subjects ranging from parliamentary proceedings to the applicability of fundamental rights
The courtroom dialogue underscores the complexity of the legal debate surrounding Article 370’s abrogation and its subsequent implications. As the proceedings unfold, legal minds clash, and interpretations diverge, the apex court’s deliberations continue to shed light on a critical chapter in India’s constitutional histor
