Article 370 hearing: Constitution can’t be manipulated for political gains, says Sibal
Through his arguments, Sibal questioned whether the will of the people was taken into consideration before downgrading Jammu and Kashmir to a Union Territory without proper consultation.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, on the third day of the hearing before the Supreme Court on a batch of petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, emphasized that the Constitution cannot be manipulated for political gains.
Sibal addressed the five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, stating, "We stand in a situation where, though the Constitution is a political document, its provisions cannot be manipulated or maneuvered for political ends. That's not how we interpret the Constitution. It is a political document, but you can misuse it politically.”
READ | Kapil Sibal evokes Ranjan Gogoi's Parliament remark in Supreme Court, CJI says...
During his submissions, Sibal referred to a speech made by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the first elected Prime Minister of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Chief Justice Chandrachud interjected, acknowledging Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's vision in 1951, which remains relevant even today.
Sibal is representing National Conference MP Mohammad Akbar Lone and Hussain Masoodi in the case. He continued his arguments, stating, "A unilateral executive decision cannot change the terms of a relationship constitutionally embedded in Article 370. An executive act of the Union of India cannot unilaterally alter provisions of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State of J&K. Ultimately, this was a political decision taken in the context of the situation prevailing, right? And the complete abrogation must also be a political decision. It's a fraud of the Constitution."
Chief Justice Chandrachud responded, highlighting that in a democracy like India, seeking the opinion of the people must be through established institutions. He emphasised that within a Constitution like India's, there is no question of a referendum, and any recourse of the will of the people has to be expressed within established constitutional parameters.
Sibal raised the issue that Article 370(3) itself provides the conditions under which abrogation can take place, but it comes on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly, not the other way round, making it difficult to initiate a bill like this.
ALSO READ | Supporters of Article 370 abrogation unaware of reality, history of J&K: Azad
Sibal stressed that there was no need to have this abrogation, as most Indian laws were already applicable in Jammu and Kashmir, except for land laws and personal laws. He suggested that the objective of the abrogation was to send a political message that Article 370 had been done away with.
Responding to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that now 1200 laws are applicable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and there are many welfare schemes available to them as well.
Sibal questioned whether the will of the people was taken into consideration before downgrading the state to a Union Territory without proper consultation. He emphasised the need to apply constitutional parameters to such a momentous change brought about by the exercise of “majoritarian power”.
Sibal concluded his submissions by urging the court not to remain silent, as the effects would be disastrous. He referred to this as a historic moment for the future of India and hoped that the court would not sit silently.
The hearing was inconclusive and will continue on Wednesday.
ALSO READ | Centre defends scrapping Article 370 ahead of Supreme Court hearing today
