India’s Supreme Court to Begin Hearing on Article 370 Abrogation in Jammu and Kashmir
After four years since the controversial annulment of India-held Kashmir’s special status by the Modi government, the constitution bench of India’s Supreme Court has set a roadmap to hear petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370. The court has declared that the hearings will be conducted on a day-to-day basis, starting from August 2.
Since the reading down of Article 370 on August 5, 2019, numerous petitions have been filed before the court. Article 370 granted special status to the region. The decision of the Supreme Court to hear the petitions on a day-to-day basis has been welcomed by political parties in India-held Jammu and Kashmir.
Omar Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, expressed confidence in the strength of their case for the restoration of Article 370. He highlighted that it took four years for the case to reach the Supreme Court, indicating the significance of the issue. Abdullah criticized the abrogation of Article 370, stating that it was wrong despite any potential links to tourism or G20 events.
Mehbooba Mufti, the Chief of the People’s Democratic Party, supported the Supreme Court’s decision to not rely on the Centre’s affidavit on the abrogation of Article 370. Mufti argued that the BJP-led union government’s move lacked a logical explanation, and the court’s decision supported her stance.
During the hearing, the bench agreed to remove the names of two petitioners, Shah Faesal and Shehla Rashid, as they had requested to withdraw their petitions. The bench also took note of concerns raised by the petitioners’ counsel regarding a fresh affidavit filed by the Modi government on Monday, claiming normalcy and progress in the two union territories following the abrogation of Article 370.
Justice Kaul, who participated in the hearing remotely, expressed reservations about the need for a fresh affidavit, as it would divert precious time from addressing the constitutionality of the abrogation. The debate on whether the case should be referred to a seven-judge bench had previously caused an avoidable diversion. In 2020, the bench had already decided that such a reference was unnecessary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured that the government would not rely on the fresh affidavit during the submissions, despite suggesting that the petitioners would not need to respond to it. The media had already reported on the contents of the affidavit, prompting the petitioners’ advocate, Dushyant Dave, to request an opportunity to respond. However, the bench noted that it could not control media coverage.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 on a day-to-day basis indicates the significance of the issue. The case holds immense importance for the people of India-held Jammu and Kashmir, as they seek the restoration of their region’s special status. The court’s approach will likely bring about further discussions and debates on the constitutionality of the move.
