New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that the argument that the application of the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) would remain frozen after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957 cannot be accepted.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to J&K. Article 370 was abrogated by the government of India in August 2019.
The petitioners argued that the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly in 1957 meant that Article 370 could no longer be amended or repealed by the Indian Parliament. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that the Constitution is a living document and that it can be amended or repealed at any time by the Parliament.
The court also said that the issuance of several constitutional orders between 1957 and 2019, which allowed provisions of the Indian Constitution to be applied in J&K, belied the argument that Article 370 had become permanent after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly.
The court’s ruling is a significant setback for the petitioners, who had hoped that the court would strike down the abrogation of Article 370. However, the court has left open the possibility that the petitioners could challenge the abrogation of Article 370 on other grounds.
The abrogation of Article 370 has been a controversial issue, with some people supporting the move and others opposing it. The Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be seen as a victory by the government of India, which has argued that the abrogation of Article 370 was necessary to integrate J&K more closely with the rest of the country. However, the ruling is also likely to be seen as a setback by those who believe that Article 370 was necessary to protect the unique identity of J&K.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a complex and nuanced one, and it is likely to be the subject of further legal challenges. It remains to be seen how the ruling will ultimately impact the future of J&K.