In a gripping legal debate, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud probed the government’s stance on whether the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir held the power to thwart the President’s decision to revoke Article 370. With Attorney-General R. Venkataramani in the hot seat, the question of the Assembly’s influence on such a critical matter hung in the balance.
Article 370 grants the President the authority to annul it, but not before soliciting the “recommendation” of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. The proviso to Article 370(3) reinforces the imperative of the Assembly’s “recommendation” prior to the President’s issuance of a notification to revoke Article 370.
The courtroom spectacle unfolded as Mr. Venkataramani posited that the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation was merely advisory and lacked binding power over the President. Advocating Article 370’s annulment as a means to realize complete national integration, he dismissed any constraint on the President’s prerogative in executing this act.
Mr. Venkataramani emphasized that the Constituent Assembly held a peripheral role, urging a pragmatic evaluation of its significance. Even if the Assembly implored “please don’t abrogate Article 370,” the President retained the autonomy to proceed, he asserted.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta echoed these sentiments, contending that the President shouldn’t hinge their decisions on an external entity outside the Indian Constitution.
However, Chief Justice Chandrachud countered these views, underscoring the Constitutional primacy of the Assembly’s recommendation. He noted that the proviso to Article 370(3) laid down that the President’s reliance on the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation was a fundamental prerequisite. Citing the categorical recognition conferred by Article 370 upon the Constituent Assembly, the Chief Justice refuted the claim that the recommendation held mere advisory status.
The case stems from the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in 1957 without recommending the repeal of Article 370. The petitioners contend that the Assembly’s silence implied its intent for Article 370 to be an enduring facet of the Indian Constitution. In 2019, the government’s alteration of the proviso from ‘Constituent Assembly of the State’ to ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’ sparked controversy, with petitioners alleging a constitutional deception.
