Revoking Article 370 was not solely by political executive but had backing of the Parliament, SC told
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for intervenor Ashwini Upadhyay, said that the word ‘recommendation’ in Article 370 indicated that the consent of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was not required for its abrogation.
He argued that the entire Parliament, including Members of Parliament from Jammu and Kashmir, had been consulted and had given their consent to the move.
Dwivedi argued that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had certain limitations during the framing of its constitution, unlike the Constituent Assembly of India. He said that the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was bound by various factors, including the Indian Constitution, the principles of justice, liberty, fraternity, and Article 1, which defined the territory of India.
He argued that Article 370 was always intended to be a temporary provision and that the speeches of Dr. BR Ambedkar, N.G. Ayyangar, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Gulzarilal Nanda indicated that the ultimate goal was the complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with other Indian states.
Dwivedi further contended that Article 370 was mentioned in the Indian Constitution as a temporary and transitional provision. He said that while the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly was dissolved after framing its constitution, Article 370 was not declared permanent, and the power to repeal it remained with the President of India, advised by the Council of Ministers accountable to Parliament.
Senior advocate V. Giri, representing the intervenor ‘All India Kashmiri Samaj,’ also said that Article 370 was intended to be temporary and its cessation was dependent on a Presidential Order.
“The cessation of operation of Article 370 has always been considered as dependent on a Presidential Order. Once Article 370 is abrogated, then the entirety of the constitutional provisions, including those providing for distribution of legislative power, exercise of executive authority, separation of powers among different organs of the state and provisions providing for a federal structure, would ipso facto apply,” he said.
The hearing is set to continue on September 4