After the SC verdict on Article 370, attention on the real objective of justice truly reaching the Kashmiri people
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. (PIB)
The Supreme Court has the final call on the Union government abrogating Article 370. The apex court upholds the abrogation and the powers of the President to order so. However, the judgement relates to the narrow, specific, path the Union government chose to deal with the controversial Article.
What one must understand is the more significant issue of whether and how the verdict serves the interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
One thing was sure after the three-part judgement of the five-judge Constitution Bench of the apex court was read out: It was not as complicated as thought before. The deductions of the bench were logical and straightforward, not raising any complex questions.
Yet, it took over four years to arrive at this judicial result. By the end of August 2019, most of the petitions challenging the abrogation order on 5 August that year were filed. On 28 August, a Supreme Court bench referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench. It was set up on 19 September.
Nothing happened till 2 March, 2020, when the court declined to refer the challenge petitions to a larger seven-judge bench. On 25 April that year, the Supreme Court finally agreed to consider listing the pleas after a petitioner sought an urgent hearing in view of the delimitation exercise being undertaken in Jammu and Kashmir.
But it was not until 11 July this year that the court said it would commence daily hearing from 2 August. The hearings began as scheduled, and after 16 hearings, the court reserved judgement on 5 September.
In the interregnum, however, a lot happened in J&K, especially Kashmir. The Union government consolidated its grip over the region through the Lieutenant Governor, with the bureaucracy under him determining and deciding on governance.
Notably, the scope of communication was curtailed, even banned in the name of security. Internet closures and restrictions became common. Social media networks were out of reach. The people had no public voice. Attempts at public protests were discouraged.
The majority of the local Kashmiri leaders were either in jail facing various charges or under house arrest, curtailing their movements, thus forcing a distance between them and the people.
Worse, the sharpest tool of an active democracy — regular and timely elections — was blunted.
Elections to the municipal bodies were last held in October 2018 and it was made official a few weeks ago that they were being deferred till next year. The tenures of the municipal corporations of the cities and towns have either ended or are about to end. The delimitation exercise is complete. Yet, there is no indication of the polls being held.
Security in the border region is often cited as an excuse. But it is the same government that often says the security situation has improved since abrogation. Secondly, how long can the elections be deferred, citing security as the reason?
Holding elections, not controlling communications and movement, can regain people’s trust in the Kashmir Valley and stop the process of alienation.
Perhaps the government was waiting for a “direction” from the Supreme Court to hold elections. Even then, the government’s four-year wait is quite long and purposeless and smacks of political expediency.
Now that the government’s abrogation has been upheld, there is no reason to delay Jammu and Kashmir’s democratic processes, particularly in the Valley. Elections are one thing. Giving back to the people their basic freedoms, voices, and rights is another.
The internal and external perceptions of the government’s commitment will depend on how it handles this crucial exercise. The government would indeed be working out a political package now that its stand has been vindicated and it has a powerful electoral plank for the next general elections.
Let it, however, be put on record that the last word on the government’s actions on 5 August, 2019, is yet to be said. There is the crucial matter of the Union government converting a state into a Union Territory (UT).
It was pointed out to the Supreme Court during the 16-day hearings that while Jammu and Kashmir state was bifurcated into two UTs, Article 3 of the Constitution is silent on such conversion.
It was argued that a state cannot be “extinguished” for the simple reason that states have to exist because Article 1 says India is a Union of States, and no precedence of converting states into UTs can, therefore, be allowed. This is the crux of the matter, more basic than Article 370 because it deals with federalism and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, reading out the verdict, said, “The question of whether Parliament can extinguish the character of Statehood by converting a State into one or more Union Territories by exercising power under Article 3 is left open.”
A speedy resolution of this issue is essential considering the growing Opposition criticism of the government for weakening the federal spirit of the country and diluting parliamentary practices and democracy.
May 02, 2024
May 02, 2024
May 02, 2024
May 01, 2024
Apr 30, 2024
Apr 30, 2024
