Center had argued that Jammu and Kashmir was one of a kind.
New Delhi:
Jammu and Kashmir are not unique and Punjab and the north east have faced similar situations, the Supreme Court stressed yesterday, questioning the need for a border state split in August 2019.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also questioned how to ensure that the power to divide a state is not ‘misused’ once it has been handed over to the central government – a point that sparked a debate over why the issue of the split could not have been resolved. regulated by parliament.
On day 12 of its hearing on a series of petitions challenging the abolition of Article 370, the Center had argued that Jammu and Kashmir was one of a kind.
“If Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh were split, the parameters would be different,” said Advocate General Tushar Mehta.
Judge SK Kaul, who was part of the five-judge constitutional bench headed by Judge Chandrachud, pointed out that the country has many states with borders.
When Mr Mehta replied that all neighboring countries are ‘not friendly’ and that it is necessary to mainstream Jammu and Kashmir in light of its history and current situation – ‘stone pelting, strikes, deaths and terror attacks’ – the chief justice said weighed .
“Once you grant that power to the Union with respect to every Indian state, how can you ensure that the kind of abuses they have observed will not be abused?” he said.
“It’s not a unique situation,” Judge Kaul added. “We have seen the northern border of Punjab – very difficult times. The same goes for some states in the Northeast… If there is a scenario tomorrow where each of these states faces this problem…,” he added.
“Does Parliament have the power to convert an existing Indian State into a Union Territory?” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked.
The court also said that even if the role of the Constituent Assembly was only advisory in relation to Article 370 – which gave Jammu and Kashmir its special status – it does not mean that the President of India can override it. At an earlier hearing, the court had said that the government will have to justify the procedure it followed to remove Article 370 because it could not assume that “the end justifies the means”.
