"Case can't be reduced to 'emotional majority interpretation' of constitution,"

The hearing is set to continue on September 4.

New Delhi, Sep. 2 (IANS) On the fourteenth day of hearing arguments against the repeal of Article 370, the Supreme Court was informed that the Parliament also supported the political executive’s determination to abolish the constitutional provision.


The phrase “recommendation” in Article 370 suggested that the permission of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was not necessary for its abrogation, according to senior attorney Rakesh Dwivedi, speaking on behalf of intervenor Ashwini Upadhyay.

He maintained that the measure had the approval of the whole Parliament, including the members from Jammu and Kashmir, who had been consulted.

Dwivedi stated that, in contrast to the Constituent Assembly of India, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was subject to a number of restrictions while formulating its constitution. He said that many things, including the Indian Constitution, the ideals of justice, liberty, and fraternity, and Article 1, which established the boundaries of India, bound the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.

According to him, Jawaharlal Nehru, N.G. Ayyangar, Gulzarilal Nanda, and Dr. BR Ambedkar all said that Jammu and Kashmir’s full integration with the other Indian states was the ultimate aim in their speeches, and that is why Article 370 was always meant to be a temporary measure.

Dwivedi said that Article 370 was referred to in the Indian Constitution as a transitional and transitory clause. He said that even though the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was disbanded after drafting the state’s constitution, Article 370 had not been proclaimed inviolable and the President of India still had the authority to revoke it on the advice of the Council of Ministers answerable to Parliament.

Senior attorney V. Giri, who is representing the intervenor “All India Kashmiri Samaj,” also claimed that Article 370 was only meant to be transitory and that the President’s order was required for it to be repealed.

“The termination of Article 370’s application has always been seen as requiring a Presidential Order. “Once Article 370 is repealed, all of the constitutional provisions—including those establishing a federal structure, dividing powers among state organs, exercising executive authority, and allocating legislative power—would ipso facto take effect.

On September 4, the hearing will resume.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here